Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Extremism Exposed >> Gandalf's version of democracy
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388619982

Message started by freediver on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:46am

Title: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:46am
Gandalf objected to me starting a new thread on this on the Islam board, but I think his curious take on how democracy works is worth it's own thread:


freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:17pm:
61% of Malaysians are Muslims. Of these, 86% favour Sharia law being the law of the land. Of these, 60% support stoning adulterers to death and 62% support the death penalty for apostasy. That makes roughly 31% and 33% of the total population.

When Gandalf and Ian demanded I explain why these laws have not come to pass in Malaysia, I suggested democracy might have something to do with it, as roughly two thirds of the population oppose these laws. It would be reasonable to presume they oppose them strongly enough to vote against any party that supports them. Apparently this explanation is not good enough.

This does not mean of course that they do not have similar laws. For example, Malaysia has "rehabilitation" camps for Muslim apostates and blasphemy is illegal. The government refuses to officially acknowledge Muslims who reject Islam and still classifies them as Muslims.

Gandalf has taken the extraordinary position that the reason they do not have these laws is because the 1/3 of the population that supports them don't really care enough to get them, rather than because 2/3 of the population oppose them - as "passionately" as you would expect people to oppose letting Muslims start killing people in the name of Islam. Despite having significant minor parties that push the issue, and Anwar Ibrahim needing to clarify prior to the last election that his coalition opposes the laws, Gandalf even tried to argue that there is not even any serious debate on the issue.

Gandalf, the reason I felt the need to start a new thread is because that seems to have far more success in getting you to see common sense. It worked very well with the rape conviction rate debate and I anticipate you suddenly seeing common sense on this issue also. [mod edit: thread has been merged with existing discussion - new thread is completely unnecessary]

Gandalf's latest efforts to push this nonsense - by way of clarification, Gandalf insists on using the Malaysian government's official racial classification scheme. That is "Malay" actually means Malaysian Muslim. Gandalf uses this term so he can talk about the "majority of Malays" as if democratic principles support his argument that the only reason 1/3 of the population don't get their way over everyone else is because they don't really want what they say they want.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:35am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 8:14am:
Quote:
and gagging the fringe islamist party from talking about it


How so?



By declaring, on behalf of all PR parties including PAS, that hudud would never be implemented - even though PAS obviously would disagree with this stance.


freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 8:14am:
You don't become the ruling party in a democracy by adopting a policy that the majority strongly oppose.


ummm... thats the point FD. According to you thats exactly what the BN did - adopt a policy that the majority (of Malays) oppose - and yet their voter base is Malays. Especially now after a "chinese tsunami" abandoned BN in droves during last eleciton.

[quote author=freediver link=1379233325/654#654 date=1388528084]We also have lots of fringe parties, yet it is still the two main parties that decide what an election is going to be fought over. If both labor and Liberal decide they support the Iraq war, then support for the war is not going to be a big election issue, even if many in the community feel strongly about it.


What you continue to fail to appreciate is that such a scenario suggests that by allowing the major parties to de-emphasise issues like Iraq, the public is not all that serious about those issues after all. Even if we see record breaking protests in the streets on the issue. And by the way, the iraq example is a bad one to use - since at the time of the election the invasion was already over. The public was vehemently opposed to the invasion, but once we were there, we were actually supportive of staying there to "finish the job". Thus both labor and liberal adopted policies on Iraq that were consistent with public opinion.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:47am

Quote:
Also, you are losing track of the whole point here. This whole process we are quibbling about should indicate very clearly that Malays who profess support for stoning and executing apostates in a consequence-free survey, simply aren't doing anything about acting on this support in real life. No street protests (unlike Iraq in Australia), no serious debate, and most significantly, the party that stands in the heartland of Malay voter-land openly and proudly takes an anti-hudud stance - and Malays overwhelmingly stick with them. In short, Malays simply don't care about implementing hudud laws - and while you try and obfuscate that they really are passionate about it (gotta maintain that zealot tag after all) but not having the unity or organization or whatever to implement it - the truth is there simply isn't any evidence of any sort of enthusiasm about it. Thats why you are wrong to label them "little Hitlers" and a threat to our way of life, and all round evil people based on this one survey - and ignoring their demonstrated behaviour.



freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:35am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 8:14am:
Quote:
there is a pro-hudud party, everyone knows who they are - and their leader(s) DO stand up and give Malays the hudud option


Of course they do this without any "serious" debate ever happening, hey Gandalf?



Correct. All major parties had a no-hudud policy, and whenever the one fringe islamist party tried to bring it up, they were howled down by everyone. Thats what you call "without a serious debate ever happening", and the Malay voters seemed a-ok with that, as they overwhelmingly voted for anti-hudud parties.


freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 8:14am:
Quote:
Even when Anwar tried to distance himself from it, why didn't the pro-hudud majority Malays flock to PAS in droves, instead of giving them a pathetic 14% of the vote?


Because they are lunatics?


lol aren't Malays supposedly lunatics for wanting stoning and death for apostasy? But as always you miss the point. If there was political mileage to be gained from promoting hudud, the major parties would be capitalising on it - or at the very least wouldn't be stating so openly that they are opposed to it.


freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 8:14am:
Quote:
Seems the political capital in Malaysia lies in being anti-hudud - or at the very least, it doesn't harm your political fortunes. What does that say?


The same thing I have been saying all along. Luckily they have democracy.


Nonsense. Hudud in Malaysia has only ever been proposed for Malays only. Indeed, other surveys have shown that Chinese and Indian Malaysians are not opposed to hudud because they believe that it won't affect them. So it really is a Malay-only issue, and which the success or otherwise of its implementation lies solely in the hands of the Malay public. And the fact is the Malays, who have significant political representation, have not in any way exercised the democratic levers at their disposal (protests, media etc, and especially not voting) to implement what they are supposed to want so passionately.


Gandalf's response: apparently having an Islamic political party dedicated to introducing even more backwards Islamic laws does not count as a mass movement....


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:17pm:
When Gandalf and Ian demanded I explain why these laws have not come to pass in Malaysia, I suggested democracy might have something to do with it, as roughly two thirds of the population oppose these laws. It would be reasonable to presume they oppose them strongly enough to vote against any party that supports them. Apparently this explanation is not good enough.


You really should comprehend what I actually say. The issue for me has always been why the issue doesn't even seem to register on the Malay voters radar. As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are no mass movements by Malays to introduce stoning, and when elections come around, the vast majority of Malays (yes thats Malaysian muslims, not Malaysians) - always vote for the anti-hudud parties.

What is this debate about? You have probably forgotton already , but for you this is all about painting Malays as inherently extremist and intolerant - "little Hitlers" who seem to be worth rating a mention alongside WWII imperialist Japanese - though you don't seem to know why... Freudian slip perhaps  :P... In any case, thats your agenda, this survey is only worth mentioning to push your "gah! muslim evil" barrow. Of course to you, any attempts to explain the clear mismatch between Malays stated beliefs and their demonstrated democratic behaviour is just "spineless apologetics" to you, but thats insane. To me its far more spineless to simply jump on the islamophobe bandwagon at every opportunity; expressly seeking animosity rather than understanding.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:42am
If you're lucky you might get Yadda on here urging people to google taqiyya: the muslim doctrine of deceit, alongside a few "gah muslim=evil" references, posted in crayon. Apart from that, I just don't think people here give a sh*t about your "look at me nitpicking gandalf" threads.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 11:08am
Do you think it is reasonable to say that Malaysia does not execute apostates and stone adulterers to death because it is a democracy?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Karnal on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 5:25pm
Yes, friends, you may Google taqiyya, isn't it.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:52pm

Quote:
ummm... thats the point FD. According to you thats exactly what the BN did


Can you tell the difference yet Gandalf?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:09pm
And the absurd spin continues:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:17pm:
When Gandalf and Ian demanded I explain why these laws have not come to pass in Malaysia, I suggested democracy might have something to do with it, as roughly two thirds of the population oppose these laws.


I'm afraid you are wrong. Didn't actually occur to you to consider what the non-muslim population think about the issue did it?

http://en.harakahdaily.net/index.php/berita-utama/5845-survey-confirms-failure-of-mcas-anti-hudud-campaign.html

survey:


Quote:
Asked whether they thought hudud was fair to all, 42 per cent of Chinese respondents answered in the affirmative. Only 14 per cent of the Chinese disagreed while about one-fourth of them said they were not sure.


[quote]The respondents were further asked whether the implementation of hudud could be a solution to widespread crime, to which 41 per cent of Chinese respondents agreed while some 32% were not sure. Among the Indians, while half of them were not sure with the notion, only 23% disagreed.


1. 86% of Chinese either believe that hudud is fair for all (42%) or are not sure. Only 14% believe it is unfair

2. 73% of Chinese either believe that hudud could be a solution to crime (41%) or were not sure. Only 27% disagreed.

Chinese Malaysians make up about 26% of the population. Similar ratios were found with the Indian population - which make up about 7% of the population.  I'll let you do the maths, but it certainly blows your assumption that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population "oppose" hudud laws.[/quote]

Gandalf, any idea what percentage of those ethnic Indians and Chinese are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

By "widespread crime", do you mean people abandoning Islam?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:39pm
you said 2/3rds "opposed" the hudud laws, and thats why Malaysia cannot pass the laws. I just demonstrated that more Chinese and Indians are either supportive or non-committal for Malays to implement the laws than are not. Thus the actual number of Malaysians who actively "oppose" the laws cannot be anywhere near 2/3rds. Therefore your claim has been exposed for the baseless rubbish that it is.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:55pm
Surely I don't need to explain this to you? I said that 2/3 oppose stoning adulterers to death and executing apostates. This is no different to your feeble attempt at equating my use of the term majority in the context of democracy with majority of Malaysian Muslims.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:56pm

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:55pm:
I said that 2/3 oppose stoning adulterers to death and executing apostates.


So prove it.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:04pm
Do you mean actual proof, or your version of what counts for proof as demonstrated in your last post?

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 11:45pm

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:04pm:
Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


My "honest guess", based on actual evidence - as opposed to your baseless prejudice - is that non-muslims are not hostile to the idea of muslims enacting hudud laws for themselves that do not affect non-muslims.

To quote the survey again:


Quote:
Asked whether they thought hudud was fair to all, 42 per cent of Chinese respondents answered in the affirmative. Only 14 per cent of the Chinese disagreed while about one-fourth of them said they were not sure.


Does saying that its "fair to all" sound like "opposing" hudud law (of which stoning and execution for apostasy are key tenets) to you? The reality is - according to both surveys, a small majority of Malays support stoning and execution for apostasy, and a huge majority of non-Malay Malaysians either believe its "fair to all" or are unsure (ie not oppose). Or in other words, only a tiny minority of the non-Malay population actually make a clear stance against the laws. That would put the "oppose hudud" camp in the clear minority.

In short, your claim that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population "oppose" hudud is baseless nonsense.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Yadda on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 11:55pm

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:04pm:
Do you mean actual proof, or your version of what counts for proof as demonstrated in your last post?

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


freediver,

If the moslem dominated government in Malaysia brought in laws allowing moslems to start killing people in the name of ISLAM, the moslems in Malaysia would not actually start killing people in the name of ISLAM.

Why not ?

Because the moslems in Malaysia have no desire to start killing people in the name of ISLAM, silly.

All Sharia law is like that.

Benign, harmless and just, just like moslems.



Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45am
Oh look, a Muslim avoiding the question.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 11:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:04pm:
Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


My "honest guess", based on actual evidence - as opposed to your baseless prejudice - is that non-muslims are not hostile to the idea of muslims enacting hudud laws for themselves that do not affect non-muslims.

To quote the survey again:


Quote:
Asked whether they thought hudud was fair to all, 42 per cent of Chinese respondents answered in the affirmative. Only 14 per cent of the Chinese disagreed while about one-fourth of them said they were not sure.


Does saying that its "fair to all" sound like "opposing" hudud law (of which stoning and execution for apostasy are key tenets) to you? The reality is - according to both surveys, a small majority of Malays support stoning and execution for apostasy, and a huge majority of non-Malay Malaysians either believe its "fair to all" or are unsure (ie not oppose). Or in other words, only a tiny minority of the non-Malay population actually make a clear stance against the laws. That would put the "oppose hudud" camp in the clear minority.

In short, your claim that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population "oppose" hudud is baseless nonsense.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:54am
Oh look, FD avoiding the fact that he has no shred of evidence for his claim that 100% of Chinese and Indian Malaysians "oppose" Malays enacting hudud laws for themselves.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:58am
I was hoping common sense would suffice.

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:13am

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:58am:
I was hoping common sense would suffice.


Common sense certainly does suffice in demonstrating that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 2/3rds of the population "oppose" muslims enacting capital punishment laws for muslims.


Quote:
Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


I just gave you a survey in which Chinese and Indian Malaysians say they consider hudud "fair to all".

Hudud has only ever been proposed as applicable to Malays only. It is not a ridiculous proposition that non-muslims by and large do not oppose Malays enacting laws for Malays that won't affect them, and the survey I quoted strongly suggests this.

There is *NO* evidence that non-muslim Malaysians overwhelmingly object to Malays enacting laws to kill each other (ie capital punishment that only applies to muslims). And the idea that 100% of them actively "oppose" it (the only way to get your 2/3rds) to the extent that it makes enacting the laws impossible, is utterly baseless and just plain stupid.

Just face it, you f*cked up in claiming that 2/3rds of the entire population oppose it, so lets just move on.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:16am
Oh look, a Muslim avoiding the question (again).

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
There is *NO* evidence that non-muslim Malaysians overwhelmingly object to Malays enacting laws to kill each other (ie capital punishment that only applies to muslims).


Do you think the death penalty for apostates only applies to Muslims? Is that why it is "fair to all"?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:18am
WTF FD?

You've said some stupid things before, but I never really thought you could be this irrational.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:40am
I think you are not willing to actually say it because you know you are full of crap.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53am

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:40am:
I think you are not willing to actually say it because you know you are full of crap.


Say what FD? Something that is completely baseless? I'm merely asking for evidence that 100% of non-muslim Malaysians oppose muslims enacting capital punishment laws that apply only to muslims. You have none.

Is it really so incomprehensible to you that non-muslims would not object to muslims applying capital offense laws that apply only to muslims?

You are flailing - badly. And its quite sad to watch to be perfectly honest.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:55am
You want proof of something you are not prepared to disagree with?

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
Is it really so incomprehensible to you that non-muslims would not object to muslims applying capital offense laws that apply only to muslims?


Is this a reference to the death penalty for apostasy?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:45am

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:55am:
You want proof of something you are not prepared to disagree with?


No, I want proof for a claim you have not a shred of evidence for. Is it that hard to understand? Once more with feeling: what proof is there to support your claim that 100% of non-muslim Malaysians oppose muslims subjecting themselves (and only themselves) to hudud laws?


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:55am:
Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


For the third time, not many - according to the survey.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:55am:
Is this a reference to the death penalty for apostasy?


Of course. They were asked if hudud laws could be "fair to all", and more than 80% responded yes (most) or not sure. Apostasy laws are part and parcel of hudud.

Do you understand yet that hudud has only ever been proposed as something that will only apply to muslims?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:37pm

Quote:
No, I want proof for a claim you have not a shred of evidence for.


Is this a claim I actually made, or are you demanding I prove another of your little fantasies? Think before answering.


Quote:
For the third time, not many - according to the survey.


I think you have gotten yourself confused again.


Quote:
Of course. They were asked if hudud laws could be "fair to all"


So, they were not actually asked about whether Muslims should start killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
Apostasy laws are part and parcel of hudud.


Yet many Muslims disagree with this. Even you do, apparently.


Quote:
Do you understand yet that hudud has only ever been proposed as something that will only apply to muslims?


I think you are confused if you are claiming the death penalty for apostasy only applies to Muslims, or if you think the ethnic Chinese and Indians would consider it fair to execute someone for apostasy. Which is of course why you cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer.

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:06pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:37pm:
Is this a claim I actually made, or are you demanding I prove another of your little fantasies? Think before answering.


You claimed 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing laws for stoning and death for apostasy. That would require opposition from virtually 100% of the non-muslim population. All I ask for is one shred of evidence for this, thats a little more than a statement that begins with "take an honest guess..." Don't make this unnecessary complex FD.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:37pm:
Yet many Muslims disagree with this. Even you do, apparently.


Not PAS. The survey was conducted in specific relation to PAS's policy on hudud - if you bothered to read the article I linked.

Don't try and obfuscate here FD, its pathetic. You tried to claim that the non-muslims have set up an effective democratic bloc against the majority of Malays who supposedly wish to introduce stoning and execution for apostasy. You have no shred of evidence to support this, and the only evidence we have strongly suggests the non-muslims overwhelmingly have no problem with Malays implementing hudud - if they wished. Yet apparently they don't - as I pointed out from the very beginning. Most Malays vote for anti-hudud parties.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Baronvonrort on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:06pm:
You claimed 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing laws for stoning and death for apostasy. That would require opposition from virtually 100% of the non-muslim population. All I ask for is one shred of evidence for this


Where did he claim that?

Does the PEW report say over 60% favour sharia law in Malaysia which includes stoning for adultery and chopping the heads off apostates?

www.nst.com.my/latest/19-muslim-couples-nabbed-for-khalwat-on-new-years-day-1.452354



Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:21pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:17pm:
gandalf wrote Today at 3:06pm:
You claimed 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing laws for stoning and death for apostasy. That would require opposition from virtually 100% of the non-muslim population. All I ask for is one shred of evidence for this



Where did he claim that?



From page 1:


Quote:
When Gandalf and Ian demanded I explain why these laws have not come to pass in Malaysia, I suggested democracy might have something to do with it, as roughly two thirds of the population oppose these laws.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:29pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:17pm:
Does the PEW report say over 60% favour sharia law in Malaysia which includes stoning for adultery and chopping the heads off apostates?


Not exactly.

But anyway, the question is, does it say 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose those laws? No. Does any known survey demonstrate that 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing stoning and death for apostasy laws? No. Perhaps you can explain that to FD, I'm not having much luck.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm
Gandalf, do you still think that laws to execute apostates only apply to Muslims? Why are you afraid to answer this question?


Quote:
You claimed 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing laws for stoning and death for apostasy.


So, not what you claimed I said eh? Do you need me to explain the difference?


Quote:
All I ask for is one shred of evidence for this, thats a little more than a statement that begins with "take an honest guess..." Don't make this unnecessary complex FD.


I am not going to look for proof of something you are not prepared to disagree with. What you are suggesting is stupid, which is why you are afraid to come out and say it. You demand proof from me, but from you we cannot even get an opinion, or even a guess. Just endless spin and misrepresentation.


Quote:
Not PAS. The survey was conducted in specific relation to PAS's policy on hudud - if you bothered to read the article I linked.


So you won't have trouble showing the percentage of non-Muslims who are in favour of their policy of Muslims killing people in the name of Islam?

Let me guess, a Muslim political party that supports killing apostates conducted a survey to show that Malaysians support their policy, but failed to actually ask if they support killing apostates. Then all the other Muslims swallowed whatever BS the Muslim political party fed them. Is that about it Gandalf?

BTW, is this survey of yours another example of "no serious debate" in Malaysia on the issue?


Quote:
Don't try and obfuscate here FD, its pathetic. You tried to claim that the non-muslims have set up an effective democratic bloc against the majority of Malays


Duh. That's how democracy works Gandalf. It makes a lot more sense than your assertion that it is because the minority who support these laws lack motivation.


Quote:
who supposedly wish to introduce stoning and execution for apostasy


The difference here Gandalf is that I have a survey that actually shows that.


Quote:
and the only evidence we have strongly suggests the non-muslims overwhelmingly have no problem with Malays implementing hudud


All the evidence suggests is the lengths you will go to to misrepresent that facts and discard common sense. For example right here we have an example of you changing the topic.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:24pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm:
Gandalf, do you still think that laws to execute apostates only apply to Muslims?


Yes FD thats a given  ::)

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:42pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm:
I am not going to look for proof of something you are not prepared to disagree with.


I'm sorry, what am I allegedly not prepared to disagree with?


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm:
What you are suggesting is stupid, which is why you are afraid to come out and say it.


Presumably you are referring to my suggestion that non-muslims have indicated that they have no problem with muslims implementing hudud laws on muslims. I don't think thats stupid at all - especially when Chinese and Indian Malaysians overwhelmingly say either they have no problem with Malays introducing hudud or they are non-committal. Its far more stupid to claim they do have an objection - with absolutely no supporting evidence.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm:
You demand proof from me, but from you we cannot even get an opinion, or even a guess. Just endless spin and misrepresentation.


Thats because you don't listen - even though I have given you this opinion of mine repeatedly in this thread, which I'll repeat once again: Chinese and other non-muslim Malaysians have no problem with introducing hudud, which is universally understood in Malaysia as something that will only ever affect muslims. It is my *OPINION* that it makes perfect sense for non-muslim Malaysians to have no objection to muslims enacting their own capital punishment laws that won't apply to them.

And no, apostasy laws have never ever been suggested to apply to non-muslims, how could it? You have to be muslim first to be an apostate - unless you are offering the ridiculous suggestions that Muslims would propose executing Chinese christians for converting to islam?  :P Well that wouldn't surprise me considering your extraordinary form in this thread so far. Anyway, Malaysians understand this, even if you don't, and attitudes on the subject are formed with this understanding in mind.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:54pm:
Let me guess, a Muslim political party that supports killing apostates conducted a survey


I'm sorry, which muslim political party conducted a survey? Or are you referring to the survey conducted by University Malaya Centre for Democracy and Elections?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Yadda on Jan 4th, 2014 at 6:40pm
gandalf,

Is a tyranny ever lawful ?

e.g.
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule.      a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.





I am thinking of this Koran verse....

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29



Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Stratos on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:05pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 6:40pm:
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule.      a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.


It worked for Australia!

[rimshot]

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Yadda on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:17pm

Stratos wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 6:40pm:
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule.      a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.


It worked for Australia!

[rimshot]



Stratos,

Touche!


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:28pm
Yadda seeing your rants almost comes as a relief after trying to deal with FD's inane babbling.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Datalife on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:32pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 6:40pm:
gandalf,

Is a tyranny ever lawful ?

e.g.
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule.      a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.


Sure why not?  A state is lawful or at least exists when other states recognise and respect its existence.  Any amount of tyrannical countries have held elections where they can point to democratic principles.  And even where democracy is respected an abused population can still vote for tyrannical tendencies.

We are going to see a lot more of it, Europe is battening down its hatches, on top of economic woes country shoppers will be receiving greater and negative attention. 

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:12pm

Quote:
I'm sorry, what am I allegedly not prepared to disagree with?


For starters, what I actually said. You had to invent something to disagree with.

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
Presumably you are referring to my suggestion that non-muslims have indicated that they have no problem with muslims implementing hudud laws on muslims.


Earth to Gandalf: We are talking about chopping people's heads off. You don't have to "presume" what we are talking about. I tell you every single post, and every single response you pretend you cannot understand basic English.


Quote:
Thats because you don't listen - even though I have given you this opinion of mine repeatedly in this thread


You keep giving me an opinion on a different issue. You change the topic, then give your opinion on it. You do this over and over again, apparently oblivious to how mind-numbingly stupid it is.


Quote:
And no, apostasy laws have never ever been suggested to apply to non-muslims, how could it?


Is an apostate a Muslim?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:29pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:12pm:
For starters, what I actually said. You had to invent something to disagree with.


Lets be clear, I 100% disagree with your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing stoning and execution for apostasy. And just to clarify, that is exactly the same as saying 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing hudud laws that apply only to muslims - since apostasy and stoning laws are part and parcel of any proposed hudud law in Malaysia. Moreover, it goes without saying - always has gone without saying - that any proposed hudud laws in Malaysia only applies to muslims.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:12pm:
Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Shall I repeat myself for a fourth time?

How about you take an "honest guess" FD - how many non-muslims do you really believe would oppose muslims enacting their own laws that apply only to muslims?


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:12pm:
ou keep giving me an opinion on a different issue. You change the topic, then give your opinion on it.


reply #s 11, 16 and 22 contain the opinion you asked for - it is exactly the same topic, and is exactly the same response - just repeated three times for your convenience. I did the courtesy of repeating it every time you asked for it - but if you cannot comprehend a very simple explanation, then I'm afraid there's not much else I can do for you.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:12pm:
Is an apostate a Muslim?


An apostate is a former muslim. Chinese and Indian Malaysians never were muslims. Try and explain to me how islamic apostasy laws apply to people who never were muslim in the first place. This should be interesting.

Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm

Quote:
And just to clarify, that is exactly the same as saying 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing hudud laws that apply only to muslims - since apostasy and stoning laws are part and parcel of any proposed hudud law in Malaysia.


But it is not part of existing hudud laws, and your survey was obviously asking them about laws they know about, rather than about potential laws. The Pew survey showed a variety of opinions within the Muslim community based on each particular aspect of Shariah law. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that the non-Muslim Malaysian community has a one-size-fits-all opinion on the matter. You are trying to equate the most barbaric aspects of Islamic law with the most banal.


Quote:
How about you take an "honest guess" FD - how many non-muslims do you really believe would oppose muslims enacting their own laws that apply only to muslims?


Anywhere between 0% and 100%, depending on the specific law.


Quote:
An apostate is a former muslim.


Do you really think that ethnic Chinese and Indians would consider it "fair" to kill someone because they are a former Muslim? Do you think it is reasonable to insist that the law only applies to Muslims when it also applies to "former" muslims?


Quote:
Try and explain to me how islamic apostasy laws apply to people who never were muslim in the first place. This should be interesting.


Why should I do that? Again, it is your little fantasy.


Quote:
Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.


Earth to Gandalf: I did not say that. Ask me to back up what I actually say, but please stop demanding I prove every little fantasy you dream up.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 5th, 2014 at 7:32am

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
But it is not part of existing hudud laws


There are no existing hudud laws in Malaysia.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
and your survey was obviously asking them about laws they know about, rather than about potential laws.


And what do they know about FD? You seem to suddenly know all about it. For your information they were talking about the PAS proposed hudud which absolutely does include stoning and execution for apostasy - they have made this clear.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
You cannot seriously expect us to believe that the non-Muslim Malaysian community has a one-size-fits-all opinion on the matter.


Hillarious. You're the one trying to claim that 100% of them have a one-size-fits-all opinion on apostasy and stoning.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
You are trying to equate the most barbaric aspects of Islamic law with the most banal.


lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
Do you really think that ethnic Chinese and Indians would consider it "fair" to kill someone because they are a former Muslim?


According to the survey, yes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.The survey didn't ask respondents to exclude the known hudud law of executing apostates in their assessment that hudud is "fair to all".


freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:53pm:
Quote:
Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.


Earth to Gandalf: I did not say that


Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.

Interesting that you have dropped the stoning now.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 5th, 2014 at 7:55am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 7:32am:
Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.


And just to clarify, you didn't merely say that they "oppose" it, your original claim was that they actively blocked Malays from implementing their own hudud laws - a minority of Malays plus 100% of non-muslims which makes 2/3rds of the entire population. This is the biggest BS in the whole discussion - since there is no evidence whatsoever indicating that non-muslims want to block this - in fact the evidence suggests that they are happy to let muslims implement their own capital punishment laws - if they want it.

And by the way, you have to be muslim at the time the laws are implemented to be eligible for the apostasy law.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am

Quote:
And what do they know about FD? You seem to suddenly know all about it. For your information they were talking about the PAS proposed hudud which absolutely does include stoning and execution for apostasy - they have made this clear.


I know what you posted about it, which is that they see it as a way of reducing rampant crime (by Muslims?) and as fair because it only applies to Muslims. Neither of these makes sense for executing apostates, and the rampant crime thing does not make sense for stoning adulterers.

Furthermore, it does not make sense for the Indians and Chinese to be willing to accept these laws out of some sense of inter-community "live and let live" when it involves executing apostates.


Quote:
And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.


And on apostates?


Quote:
Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.


The numbers I got were less than 1/3 of the population, based on the Muslims only. This allows for a small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese who are happy to see the indigenous kill each other for whatever reason to still give roughly 2/3 of the population opposing the laws. It is you who has a problem with the maths, yet again.


Quote:
Interesting that you have dropped the stoning now.


What do you think I mean when I say "the most barbaric" laws? It does not get any worse than stoning people to death.


Quote:
And just to clarify, you didn't merely say that they "oppose" it, your original claim was that they actively blocked Malays from implementing their own hudud laws


Of course they do. They are hardly going to vote for Islamic extremists. The pro-killing people group only just make a majority of the Muslim community. They don't need to do anything active to block it. It's not like it is some kind of conspiracy. Less than 1/3 of the population actually want these laws to begin with, and a significant portion of the rest are the ones at risk of being executed.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 5th, 2014 at 4:14pm

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am:
I know what you posted about it


Evidently not - for one thing it needed to be pointed out to you that the survey was not conducted by PAS, or any other "Muslim political party that supports killing apostates."


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am:
which is that they see it as a way of reducing rampant crime (by Muslims?) and as fair because it only applies to Muslims. Neither of these makes sense for executing apostates, and the rampant crime thing does not make sense for stoning adulterers.


You need to demonstrate that the Chinese and Indian respondents were specifically thinking about those crimes only when they stated that hudud is "fair to all". Otherwise, the default position is that apostasy and adultery hudud laws are included - because thats been PAS policy all along - and the survey was specifically in response to PAS's policy.

Either way, the point is there is no evidence here to suggest that the respondents oppose stoning and apostasy laws - and thats what you need to demonstrate. And simply arguing your point with your lame-arsed "take an honest guess" routine simply doesn't cut it.


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am:
Furthermore, it does not make sense for the Indians and Chinese to be willing to accept these laws out of some sense of inter-community "live and let live" when it involves executing apostates


Yes it does, since it can never affect them (unless they convert to islam). You have to be muslim to start with to be eligible for the apostasy laws. For them, its basicaly saying "if they want to enact laws to kill themselves, then so be it". Of course it could be the non-muslims might oppose this on moral grounds - but we need some evidence to prove it.


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am:
The numbers I got were less than 1/3 of the population, based on the Muslims only. This allows for a small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese who are happy to see the indigenous kill each other for whatever reason to still give roughly 2/3 of the population opposing the laws. It is you who has a problem with the maths, yet again.


No. Please follow the calculation carefully: 39% of the population are non-muslim. Amongst the muslim population around 53% support executing apostates (62% of 86% who support sharia). That makes 47% of muslims who oppose the laws, which makes up around 28% of the population.

Right?

Ok, so we need to get the "oppose" camp up from 28% to 2/3rds (66.6%) using the non-muslim population. The non-muslims makes up around 39% of the population. How many non-muslims do we need? -  66.6%-28% = 38.6%. Well look at that - 100% of the non-muslim population pretty much makes exactly 2/3rds of the population (28% + 39% = 67%) :p. There literally is no " small but significant minority" left.


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:17am:
and a significant portion of the rest are the ones at risk of being executed.


Good grief, how do you suppose that??

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm

Quote:
You need to demonstrate that the Chinese and Indian respondents were specifically thinking about those crimes only when they stated that hudud is "fair to all". Otherwise, the default position is that apostasy and adultery hudud laws are included


Gandalf, when you need to invent new fields of logic to back up your case it's time to give it a rest.

Do you believe that when the Indians and Chinese said it would reduce rampant crime, they were referring to apostasy or adultery?


Quote:
because thats been PAS policy all along - and the survey was specifically in response to PAS's policy


So the survey was specifically in response to a policy on executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death, yet did not mention these things at any point? Furthermore the responses indicate that the participants had something else in mind. Doesn't that make you the least bit skeptical of the results?


Quote:
Either way, the point is there is no evidence here to suggest that the respondents oppose stoning and apostasy laws - and thats what you need to demonstrate.


You would probably have trouble proving that Australians oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You might even find some who don't get particularly wound up over vague waffle about Muslims living by their own rules. That is not reasonable grounds for discarding common sense.


Quote:
And simply arguing your point with your lame-arsed "take an honest guess" routine simply doesn't cut it.


It was never intended to be an argument. I just don't see the point in proving something when you don't even have the balls to disagree with it.


Quote:
Yes it does, since it can never affect them (unless they convert to islam).


Way to completely miss the point Gandalf. It does not make sense. Think about it.


Quote:
You have to be muslim to start with to be eligible for the apostasy laws. For them, its basicaly saying "if they want to enact laws to kill themselves, then so be it". Of course it could be the non-muslims might oppose this on moral grounds - but we need some evidence to prove it.


You need evidence that Chinese and Indians have morals?


Quote:
Ok, so we need to get the "oppose" camp up from 28% to 2/3rds (66.6%) using the non-muslim population. The non-muslims makes up around 39% of the population. How many non-muslims do we need? -  66.6%-28% = 38.6%. Well look at that - 100% of the non-muslim population pretty much makes exactly 2/3rds of the population (28% + 39% = 67%) :p. There literally is no " small but significant minority" left.


I see you've been very creative with your rounding there Gandalf. Even so, you still cannot make it 100%. Fact is, you have been asking me to prove your own little fantasy for you all along.


Quote:
Good grief, how do you suppose that??


There are a lot of people considered Muslim by the Malaysian government who are not actually Muslim. That's what the "rehabilitation camps" are for. There are a lot more who simply keep their mouth shut. If anyone has a motive to get their view across, it is these people. They are the ones who risk getting executed.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:53pm

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm:
I see you've been very creative with your rounding there Gandalf. Even so, you still cannot make it 100%. Fact is, you have been asking me to prove your own little fantasy for you all along.


Please point out to me this "creative rounding". The numbers add up - I used the exact same figures you used in the OP. If you are correct in saying that 2/3rds of the entire population oppose the laws, then there is no "small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese" that support hudud apostasy laws - You literally need 100% of the non-muslim population.

From the OP:

Quote:
Gandalf has taken the extraordinary position that the reason they do not have these laws is because the 1/3 of the population that supports them don't really care enough to get them, rather than because 2/3 of the population oppose them


Clearly, you came up with 2/3rds "oppose" by simple default - 1/3 support, therefore 2/3rds must oppose. The 1/3 is the Malays you got from the survey, and the 2/3rds is everyone else. You see the problem here FD? The "support" camp *ONLY* comes from the Malays (muslims) who stated in the PEW survey that they support death for apostasy. And here's the crunch: there simply is no one left to be included amongst your imaginary "small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese" who support death for apostasy. You literally just made it up on the spot - directly contradicting yourself - just so you can reject my (obviously correct) claim that 2/3rds must include 100% of non-muslims - even though thats clearly what you meant in the OP. That how petty you are FD.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:15am

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm:
Gandalf, when you need to invent new fields of logic to back up your case it's time to give it a rest.


I don't have a case to back up FD. *I'M* not the one ridiculously claiming that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian population "oppose" the implementation of hudud apostasy and stoning laws, with not a shred of evidence. *I'M* not the one saying that the only "proof" we need for this claim is merely to feel the vibe and to "take an honest guess".


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm:
Do you believe that when the Indians and Chinese said it would reduce rampant crime, they were referring to apostasy or adultery?


No, clearly they were saying "we oppose hudud apostasy and adultery laws", even if there is no evidence of them doing so. Its all about the vibe.  ::)

FD's logic: Group x were talking about issue a - therefore that proves that they oppose issue b.

Thats what we call a logical fallacy.


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm:
So the survey was specifically in response to a policy on executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death, yet did not mention these things at any point? Furthermore the responses indicate that the participants had something else in mind. Doesn't that make you the least bit skeptical of the results?


uhuh - and once again we use FD logic to "prove" that their responses to issue a means they oppose issue b.


freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm:
You would probably have trouble proving that Australians oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You might even find some who don't get particularly wound up over vague waffle about Muslims living by their own rules. That is not reasonable grounds for discarding common sense


But it is absolutely reasonable grounds for discarding actual evidence to prove a baseless claim. You just need to take an "honest guess".  :P


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:28am

Quote:
*I'M* not the one saying that the only "proof" we need for this claim is merely to feel the vibe and to "take an honest guess".


Earth to Gandalf: I am not claiming this is proof of my position, but proof that you are unwilling to disagree with me, and are demanding proof of something you may well agree with.


Quote:
FD's logic: Group x were talking about issue a - therefore that proves that they oppose issue b


My logic is that they were not saying they support executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death. It was very naive of you to think they were and it should not have taken me a few pages to get you to understand this.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:32am

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:28am:
Earth to Gandalf: I am not claiming this is proof of my position


I understand that FD - it is not proof of your position that 2/3rds of Malaysians oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery - because you have no proof. Thats the whole point here.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:28am:
but proof that you are unwilling to disagree with me, and are demanding proof of something you may well agree with.


I disagree with your position FD. Your position is that 100% of non-muslims oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery, and that opposition helps make up a 2/3rds majority democratic bloc that has been the main thing standing in the way of the majority of muslims who want to implement the laws. That is your position, and however much you try and spin it into something different, this has always been your position ever since post 1 of this thread.

And in case I haven't mentioned it already, it is a position that is simplistic, ignorant - and above all completely lacking in fact.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:28am:
My logic is that they were not saying they support executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death.


In a discussion about whether or not 100% of the entire non-muslim population "oppose" hudud laws on apostasy and adultery. However you spin these responses (and you are spinning them - nowhere does it say they were picking and choosing which aspects of the known hudud laws they were responding to), they most certainly are *NOT* providing any sort of evidence that they oppose hudud laws on apostasy and adultery. But I'm glad you seemed to have abandoned the schtick about somehow not needing 100% of the non-muslim population to reach 2/3rds, and fairy tales about "creative rounding" and faulty maths on my part.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm

Quote:
I disagree with your position FD. Your position is that 100% of non-muslims oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery


If you can prove that this is my position, I will prove it for you.


Quote:
And in case I haven't mentioned it already, it is a position that is simplistic, ignorant - and above all completely lacking in fact.


How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
uhuh - and once again we use FD logic to "prove" that their responses to issue a means they oppose issue b


Gandalf, you are the only one here trying to prove that the survey shows what they think about executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death. Not me.


Quote:
In a discussion about whether or not 100% of the entire non-muslim population "oppose" hudud laws on apostasy and adultery. However you spin these responses (and you are spinning them - nowhere does it say they were picking and choosing which aspects of the known hudud laws they were responding to), they most certainly are *NOT* providing any sort of evidence that they oppose hudud laws on apostasy and adultery.


Of course not. You introduced them as evidence. Proving that they do not back your case does not actually prove my case for me. It just shows that you are wrong. It is you who is spinning the responses, not me. I have not claimed anything at all about them. Once again you build your entire argument on ignoring what i actually say and creating your own little fantasies to argue against, and I have to spend a few pages on each one patiently explaining to you that it is not what I said.


Quote:
But I'm glad you seemed to have abandoned the schtick about somehow not needing 100% of the non-muslim population to reach 2/3rds, and fairy tales about "creative rounding" and faulty maths on my part.


I have not abandonded it at all. Like I said, the Muslims who support each of these laws make up less than 1/3 of the population. The 100% "schtick" is entirely your creation. You got the maths wrong from the beginning, and not matter how slowly I explain it to you, you still don't get it

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
If you can prove that this is my position, I will prove it for you.


Sure, you said 2/3rds of the population oppose introducing hudud laws on apostasy and adultery.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.

And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws, and no real reason to suspect that they would. And no one except you is wildly flailing around screaming hysterically about "allowing muslims to start killing people in the name of islam".


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
Gandalf, you are the only one here trying to prove that the survey shows what they think about executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death. Not me.


No, I'm the only one here pointing out that this is the only piece of evidence we have on what non-muslims think about the issue, and that it strongly suggests the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.

What are non-muslim's view about enacting hudud apostasy and stoning laws? We don't really know precisely, but we *DO* know that in a survey in which non-muslims are asked about hudud law - period, not "hudud law minus apostasy and adultery laws", non-muslims overwhelmingly either said it was "fair to all" or were unsure. That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100% of these people "oppose" above mentioned hudud laws. You are simply wrong if you are trying to say that the respondents were only talking about a particular aspect(s) of hudud when they state it was "fair to all" - because no such distinction is indicated, anywhere.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
You introduced them as evidence. Proving that they do not back your case does not actually prove my case for me. It just shows that you are wrong. It is you who is spinning the responses, not me. I have not claimed anything at all about them.


Of course not FD - you definitely weren't claiming "they were not saying they support executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death" - right? Oh wait... :P

On planet earth, they were talking about hudud - executing apostates and stoning adulterers is a well known aspect of hudud. PAS have made it clear that it is part of *THEIR* hudud policy. These non-muslim respondents were talking specifically about PAS's hudud policy.

But no, they definitely weren't talking about hudud apostasy and stoning laws.  :P


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
Once again you build your entire argument on ignoring what i actually say and creating your own little fantasies to argue against, and I have to spend a few pages on each one patiently explaining to you that it is not what I said.


Here's another one of my fantasies FD: you claimed 2/3rds of the population oppose introducing hudud apostasy and stoning laws. Its good that you won't have to bother explaining your evidence for that claim since you obviously never said that - right?  :D


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
I have not abandonded it at all. Like I said, the Muslims who support each of these laws make up less than 1/3 of the population.


Would you like me to go over the figures again? Exactly what part of my calculation is wrong FD - precisely? Did you notice the bit where I mentioned I used exactly the same figures as you used in the OP??


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
the Muslims who support each of these laws make up less than 1/3 of the population.


31 and 33 percent to be precise - according to *YOUR* figures in the OP. That makes 30 and 28 percent respectively amongst muslims who oppose - correct? How much is 2/3rds FD? 66.6% right? So we need 36.6% more to oppose stoning and 38.6% to oppose death for apostasy. What is the total percentage of non-muslims FD? 39% - right? Well as it turns out we have a massive 2.4% "support" for stoning and a whopping 0.4% support for death for apostasy. Is that what you are trying to pass off as a "small but significant minority?"   :P

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:51pm
From the OP:


Quote:
Gandalf has taken the extraordinary position that the reason they do not have these laws is because the 1/3 of the population that supports them don't really care enough to get them, rather than because 2/3 of the population oppose them - as "passionately" as you would expect people to oppose letting Muslims start killing people in the name of Islam.


Just help me understand this FD - why such blatant dishonesty? Why is it so hard for you to describe this accurately - that it is *NOT*, as you so unsubtly insinuate, about muslims indiscriminately killing random "people" in the name of islam like terrorists in a shopping mall - but rather muslims introducing islamic capital punishment laws on apostasy and adultery - that apply only to muslims? Give me one good reason why you would say, as if its just such a simple statement of fact, that 99.6% of non-muslims would by default oppose muslims introducing apostasy laws? Please stop wasting my time and produce some long overdue evidence.

Here's my take on it: around 1/3 of the population support introducing these laws. Slightly less (28-30%) oppose them. Amongst the rest (39%) they do not support them, but overwhelmingly they are either not against muslims introducing it for themselves, or are unsure. Why do only around 30% oppose it? Because thats the group of muslims who are against it - because they will be affected by them. The non-muslims do not generally oppose them, because it doesn't affect them.

That leaves us with a clear majority of Malaysians who will not stand in the way of these laws being introduced. Which brings us back to the original topic: it is *NOT* a scenario where a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through - but are only held back by a majority of civilized "opposers" who are successfully holding the barbarians at bay. No. We are at a point where the muslims are perfectly free to enact any and every hudud law they like, because in this democracy, the weight of opinion is on the side of either supporting them, or not wanting to stand in the way of them. Muslims can do this any time, but they don't. When it comes to the crunch, we get a situation where the vast majority of muslim votes go to staunchly anti-hudud parties, and the one pro-hudud party remains on the political fringe.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm

Quote:
Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls.


Says the guy who insists views like "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" obviously apply to executing apostates.


Quote:
It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that?


Because that is what it is like. Whether they use a bomb or a court ordered execution, it is still killing a person who has done nothing wrong.


Quote:
The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.


No we aren't. Islamic apostasy laws are obviously going to be applied to people who don't want Islamic law in any shape or form, and it is dsingenuous of you to suggest anything else.


Quote:
What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.


Yet it is still killing people in the name of Islam, isn't it?


Quote:
And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws


Actually Gandalf, that is you avoiding the question, yet again. That is a great example of you not having the balls to disagree with me, at the same time as you demand proof.


Quote:
No, I'm the only one here pointing out that this is the only piece of evidence we have on what non-muslims think about the issue, and that it strongly suggests the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.


They say nothing at all about the topic, only about the willingness of Muslims to spin BS.


Quote:
That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100%


Your claim remember Gandalf. Not mine.


Quote:
Of course not FD - you definitely weren't claiming "they were not saying they support executing apostates or stoning adulterers to death" - right? Oh wait...


Ok, that's what I was saying, and it is clearly true.


Quote:
Would you like me to go over the figures again?


Yes, until you get it right.


Quote:
Exactly what part of my calculation is wrong FD - precisely?


No idea. You presented a lot of arm waving, then at the end pulled 100 out of your arse.


Quote:
Well as it turns out we have a massive 2.4% "support" for stoning and a whopping 0.4% support for death for apostasy. Is that what you are trying to pass off as a "small but significant minority?"   


It's a bit closer, but I still had much larger numbers than you. If you repeatedly round at each stage of the calculations you are obviously going to get a silly answer. But it is good that you did not wave your arms in the air and say 0% at the end. This shows that you are a thinking man.


Quote:
Just help me understand this FD - why such blatant dishonesty?


It is not dishonest. It is killing people in the name of Islam.


Quote:
Why is it so hard for you to describe this accurately - that it is *NOT*, as you so unsubtly insinuate, about muslims indiscriminately killing random "people" in the name of islam like terrorists in a shopping mall


Oh dear. How many pages will it take me to convince Gandalf that blowing up malls was entirely his fantasy, and not what I said? It is kind of ironic for a Muslims to spin my words into something completely different, then accuse me of misleading spin.


Quote:
but rather muslims introducing islamic capital punishment laws on apostasy and adultery - that apply only to muslims? Give me one good reason why you would say, as if its just such a simple statement of fact, that 99.6% of non-muslims would by default oppose muslims introducing apostasy laws? Please stop wasting my time and produce some long overdue evidence.


I did not say 99.6% That was you gandalf. I said what I (actually) said because it is not at all unreasonable to expect non-Muslims to oppose Muslims blowing up malls. Oops I meant killing people in the name of Islam. I bet you cannot even get Brian to support executing apostates, and I think Brian is a reasonable representation of the 1% end who might be tempted to. Maybe you think Indians and Chinese are all like Brian, or worse, but I give them more credit.


Quote:
Here's my take on it: around 1/3 of the population support introducing these laws. Slightly less (28-30%) oppose them. Amongst the rest (39%) they do not support them, but overwhelmingly they are either not against muslims introducing it for themselves, or are unsure. Why do only around 30% oppose it? Because thats the group of muslims who are against it - because they will be affected by them. The non-muslims do not generally oppose them, because it doesn't affect them.


So Indians and Chinese think it is OK for Muslims to kill innocent people, so long as it is not them?


Quote:
That leaves us with a clear majority of Malaysians who will not stand in the way of these laws being introduced.


It is pretty rare for politicians to abstain, particularly when it comes to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You pretty much have to choose a side Gandalf.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm

Quote:
Which brings us back to the original topic: it is *NOT* a scenario where a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through - but are only held back by a majority of civilized "opposers" who are successfully holding the barbarians at bay.


That is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise. Although I wouldn't necessarily call the other 2/3 of the population "civilised" as it includes plenty of Muslims who support slightly less barbaric laws. As it is, Malaysia has concentration camps for apostates, so it is not like it was a clear victory for humanity.


Quote:
NNo. We are at a point where the muslims are perfectly free to enact any and every hudud law they like, because in this democracy, the weight of opinion is on the side of either supporting them, or not wanting to stand in the way of them. Muslims can do this any time, but they don't.


Finally it comes out - Gandalf's version of democracy, where Islamic extremists who want to kill people could do so easily because roughly 1/3 of the population would abstain, but they just can't be bothered and end up voting against policies they support.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Soren on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm
Sharia's Protector

December 27, 2013


Rohullah Qarizada is one of those Afghans you used to see a lot on American TV in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban's fall. Trimly bearded, dapper in Western suit and tie, he heads the Afghan Independent Bar Association in Kabul. Did you know Kabul had a bar association? A few years back, I ran into one of the U.S. prosecutors who helped set it up, with a grant from the Swedish foreign ministry. Mr. Qarizada currently sits on a committee charged with making revisions to the Afghan legal code. What kind of revisions? Well, for example: "Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances by one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning."

As in stoning to death. That's the proposed improvement to Article 21. Article 23 specifies that said punishment shall be performed in public. Mr. Qarizada gave an interview to Reuters, explaining that the reintroduction of stoning was really no big deal: You'd have to have witnesses, and they'd better be consistent. "The judge asks each witness many questions," he said, "and if one answer differs from other witnesses then the court will reject the claim." So that's all right then.

Stoning is making something of a comeback in the world's legal codes — in October the Sultan of Brunei announced plans to put it on his books. Nevertheless, Kabul has the unique distinction of proposing to introduce the practice on America's watch. Afghanistan is an American protectorate; its kleptocrat president is an American client, kept alive these last twelve years only by American arms. The Afghan campaign is this nation's longest war — and our longest un-won war: That's to say, nowadays we can't even lose in under a decade. I used to say that, 24 hours after the last Western soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there. But it's already as if we were never there: The last Christian church in the country was razed to the ground in 2010.

At this point, Americans sigh wearily and shrug, "Afghanistan, the graveyard of empire," or sneer, "If they want to live in a seventh-century s***hole, bugger 'em." But neither assertion is true. Do five minutes' googling, and you'll find images from the Sixties and early Seventies of women in skirts above the knee listening to the latest Beatles releases in Kabul record stores. True, a stone's throw (so to speak) from the capital, King Zahir's relatively benign reign was not always in evidence. But, even so, if it's too much to undo the barbarism of centuries, why could the supposed superpower not even return the country to the fitful civilization of the disco era? The American imperium has lasted over twice as long as the Taliban's rule — and yet, unlike them, we left no trace.

Seven years ago, in my book America Alone, I quoted a riposte to the natives by a British administrator, and it proved such a hit with readers that for the next couple of years at live stage appearances, from Vancouver to Vienna, Madrid to Melbourne, I would be asked to reprise it — like the imperialist version of a Beatles cover band. The chap in question was Sir Charles Napier, out in India and faced with the practice of suttee — the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier's response was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India is better off without suttee, just as Afghanistan would be better off without child marriage, honor killing, death for apostasy, and stoning for adultery. What my readers liked about my little bit of Napier karaoke at live appearances was its cultural cool. It wasn't an argument for more war, more bombs, more killing, but for more cultural confidence. In the long run, that's more effective than a drone.

The rest here: http://www.steynonline.com/5933/sharia-protector

Many, too many, people in the Western democracies have lost their cultural confidence in Western democracy.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:37pm
See, that's what happens when the extremists decide to get off their arse and vote for what they want (and happen to have a majority). According to Gandalf they are normally too lazy or end up ticking the wrong box. Islamic extremists normally prefer to meekly accept what the rest of society thinks is best for them.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Datalife on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:51pm

Soren wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm:
  At this point, Americans sigh wearily and shrug, "Afghanistan, the graveyard of empire," or sneer, "If they want to live in a seventh-century s***hole, bugger 'em." But neither assertion is true. Do five minutes' googling, and you'll find images from the Sixties and early Seventies of women in skirts above the knee listening to the latest Beatles releases in Kabul record stores. True, a stone's throw (so to speak) from the capital, King Zahir's relatively benign reign was not always in evidence. But, even so, if it's too much to undo the barbarism of centuries, why could the supposed superpower not even return the country to the fitful civilization of the disco era? The American imperium has lasted over twice as long as the Taliban's rule — and yet, unlike them, we left no trace.


There are some interesting street photos of Iran before the Islamic revolution, not a burka or dishdash to be seen and the men wearing western suits.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:47am

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:37pm:
See, that's what happens when the extremists decide to get off their arse and vote for what they want (and happen to have a majority). According to Gandalf they are normally too lazy or end up ticking the wrong box. Islamic extremists normally prefer to meekly accept what the rest of society thinks is best for them.


Afghanistan is not Malaysia. Please don't insult my intelligence by comparing Afghan muslims with Malaysian muslims. What is the literacy rate in Afghanistan compared to Malaysia?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:35am
How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to kill apostates and stone adulterers to death?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Soren on Jan 7th, 2014 at 11:30am
From the Malaysian Bar Association's website:

Only in Malaysia: where we have gone wrong with fatwa      
Monday, 05 August 2013 09:42am
Image©The Star (Used by permission)
SHARING THE NATION BY ZAINAH ANWAR

Fatwa are only advisory opinions to guide a Muslim to lead a life according to Islam.

I WONDER how many Malaysians know that under the Syariah Criminal Offences laws of this country, it is a criminal offence for a Muslim to defy, disobey or dispute or to give, propagate or disseminate any opinion concerning Islamic teachings, Islamic law or any issue, contrary to any fatwa for the time being in force.

And that we must be the only country in the Muslim world that has turned the opinion of the ulama into the law of the land without going through the legislative process and then makes it an offence for anyone to challenge that opinion.

That this is a gross violation of constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties and has no basis in Islamic legal history seem to escape those who drafted the laws and passed them in Parliament and state legislative assemblies.


http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/only_in_malaysia_where_we_have_gone_wrong_with_fatwa.html

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 7th, 2014 at 11:41am

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Says the guy who insists views like "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" obviously apply to executing apostates.


You seriously believe that when asked about "hudud" - with no qualifications - respondents will naturally infer that some parts of hudud are not included - even when the context of such a question is *SPECIFICALLY* about a particular political party's hudud policy, of which apostasy and adultery laws are well known to be part of?

You are being unreasonable. If stoning and apostasy laws left such a sour taste in people's mouths, then it is obvious that such feelings would be reflected in such a survey.

By the way, here is the survey. The relevant question is on page 45. It translates as: "Do hudud laws promise justice for all?" Very simple - no qualifications, just hudud in its entirety. If you are going to invent some scenario that they were actually only talking about parts of hudud, then you need some evidence.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Quote:
And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws


Actually Gandalf, that is you avoiding the question, yet again.


Fine have it your way - there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws -killing other people in the name of islam

You still cannot refute that.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Quote:
That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100%


Your claim remember Gandalf. Not mine.


Ah ok, more games. Here you go then...

That, at the very least should raise some alarm bells vis-a-vis your claim that 100% the vast majority of these people "oppose" above mentioned hudud laws.

You do believe that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose implementing hudud stoning and apostasy - err oops sorry I mean killing people in the name of islam laws yes? But you have exactly zero evidence to support this belief - yes?


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Quote:
Exactly what part of my calculation is wrong FD - precisely?


No idea. You presented a lot of arm waving, then at the end pulled 100 out of your arse.



The calculations are all there on reply # 42 - thats for apostasy. You claimed I did some "creative rounding". Well the calculations are all there FD - please show me where I got wrong. Don't say you don't know, its all there step by step. I came up with 99.6% of the non-muslim population (near enough to 100%??). Remember, all the figures came from your figures in the OP.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
It's a bit closer, but I still had much larger numbers than you.


Prey tell, show me your calculations.


freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Oh dear. How many pages will it take me to convince Gandalf that blowing up malls was entirely his fantasy, and not what I said?


It wasn't what you said, I never even claimed it was what you said. You really should quote what I actually say FD.

You did however infer that that is what it is like. You simply cannot bear using an accurate description like "introducing laws to execute apostates and stone adulterers". No, it is far too neutral and unemotional. You have to say "killing people in the name of islam" - understanding only too well that terrorists in a shopping mall also "kill people in the name of islam".

FD's argument relies entirely on emotion - not on facts:

1. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?"

compared to...

2. "Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims are in favour of allowing muslims to introduce laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers"

compared to...

3. "How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?"

number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws. And it also addresses the fact that non-muslims don't have to support, or be in "favour" of the laws to not be an obstacle for their implementation. And the correct and obvious answer must start with "the evidence indicates...".

Number 2 is misleading because it doesn't specify that they apply only to the Malay population.

Number 1 is just hysterical shreaking, and doesn't even mention the actual issue being discussed - namely apostasy and adultery hudud laws, and may as well be asking if non-muslims support muslim terrorists being allowed to shoot up a shopping mall or blow up a bus.

In a massive and unexpected twist, FD opts for number 1.  :P

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 7th, 2014 at 11:48am

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:20pm:
Quote:
Which brings us back to the original topic: it is *NOT* a scenario where a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through - but are only held back by a majority of civilized "opposers" who are successfully holding the barbarians at bay.


That is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise.


Oh dear God, you really are saying that.

When I quote this back to you, don't dare say that I am making up fantasies of what you said. Here you are on record as saying a majority of Malaysian Muslims are "frothing at the mouth - desperate to get 'killing people in the name of islam' laws through.

Frothing at the mouth FD? Really?? Oh yeah, you really did say that.

Here's a question FD - do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Have a think about that - please.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am

Quote:
You seriously believe that when asked about "hudud" - with no qualifications - respondents will naturally infer that some parts of hudud are not included


Wrong. You are the only one assuming anything about what the respondents meant. As I pointed out, and you regularly ignore, I was going by what they said -  "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" - hardly sounds like executing apostates.


Quote:
even when the context of such a question is *SPECIFICALLY* about a particular political party's hudud policy, of which apostasy and adultery laws are well known to be part of?


Like I said, it does not make sense to generalise. People will inevitably have different opinions about each specific law, as the Pew survey highlights. Furthermore, by not mentioning the specific laws and phrasing the questions so they are not ones of support or opposition, the survey appears deliberately intended to skew the results, or at the very least, provide sufficiently ambiguous results so that Muslims such as yourself can spin them however you want.


Quote:
You are being unreasonable.


No I am not. You are responding to a survey that showed different views on each specific Shariah Law with a generalisation about a group of laws in which the opinions expressed don't even make sense for executing apostates.


Quote:
By the way, here is the survey. The relevant question is on page 45. It translates as: "Do hudud laws promise justice for all?" Very simple - no qualifications, just hudud in its entirety. If you are going to invent some scenario that they were actually only talking about parts of hudud, then you need some evidence.


No I don't.


Quote:
You do believe that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose implementing hudud stoning and apostasy - err oops sorry I mean killing people in the name of islam laws yes?


Of course. I challenge you to find a single non-Muslim who supports Muslims executing apostates. That you project such absurd views onto these people just shows how deluded you are.


Quote:
Prey tell, show me your calculations.


They are in the opening post. Both numbers come out to less than 1/3 of the population. To get 99.6%, you have to round at several stages of the calculation, compounding your error.

To be more precise, I get 32.5% and 31.5%. To bring each of these up to exactly 1/3 with support from the remaining 39% of the population would require 2.1% and 4.8% of that group to be in support of the laws.

There are two reasons why it does not make sense to provide this 'spurious' accuracy. One is that the original numbers were rounded to the nearest percent. The other is that I actually claimed that "roughly" 2/3 of the population oppose the laws. It required an unusual combination of pedantry and careless or deliberate errors on your part to lead you to demand I "prove" that 100% of the non-Muslim population oppose these laws. It really not take so much effort to get you to move on from this.


Quote:
You did however infer that that is what it is like.


I said that it is killing people in the name of Islam, which is exactly what it is.


Quote:
You simply cannot bear using an accurate description like "introducing laws to execute apostates and stone adulterers". No, it is far too neutral and unemotional.


I think you will find that I have used those terms far more frequently in this thread. But don't let the facts get in the way of more Gandalf spin.


Quote:
"Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?"


Yes, you still haven't done that have you Gandalf?


Quote:
number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws. And it also addresses the fact that non-muslims don't have to support, or be in "favour" of the laws to not be an obstacle for their implementation. And the correct and obvious answer must start with "the evidence indicates...".


That is not how democracy works Gandalf. You are hardly going to get a third of the population abstaining on allowing Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam. That you think this way merely highlights the extent of your own delusion.


Quote:
Oh dear God, you really are saying that.


Yes Gandalf. It is a democracy. Only 1/3 of the population support the laws. The laws are inevitably going to be controversial and there is no way they will slip under the radar, which is why Anwar Ibrahim had to clarify his coalition's position on them. If only 1/3 of the population support such a law it will fail, and not because of lack of motivation on the part of those who support it, as you claim. Nor could it succeed, for want of such motivation, because of lack of interest or ambivalence among non-Muslims regarding Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims are simply not going to turn a blind eye to the barbarity of Islam rearing it's ugly head in their own backyard.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:11am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 12:43pm:
... that despite the fact that Muslims in Malaysia on the whole don't actually vote for these laws when given the opportunity at elections. And curiously we don't ever actually see these "frothing at the mouth" barbarians bombarding the streets with violent protests, terror campaigns etc to try and get what they can't through democracy.


Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws. In a representative democracy (where elections are not referendums on one single issue) that actually demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue. If you disagree, I challenge you to come up with any other issue that gets so much attention. Contrary to your absurd spin about there being no "serious" debate on the issue, it gets far more attention than nearly any other issue with so little support.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 8th, 2014 at 11:20am

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
Wrong. You are the only one assuming anything about what the respondents meant. As I pointed out, and you regularly ignore, I was going by what they said -  "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" - hardly sounds like executing apostates.


That you can't see that you are blatantly assuming what the respondents meant just shows how blinded you are by your own prejudice. By the way, the "fair to all" and "reduce rampant crime" responses were two separate questions, and the "fair to all" came first. I'm only going to say this once more - they were asked if "hudud promises justice for all" - there are no qualifications about only including certain parts of hudud - and unless you can demonstrate that the respondents were applying any qualifications about the question, you don't have a leg to stand on.


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
Furthermore, by not mentioning the specific laws and phrasing the questions so they are not ones of support or opposition, the survey appears deliberately intended to skew the results


Only someone with your blinding prejudice would claim with a straight face that people who apparently are so "passionately opposed to hudud could possibly give the responses they did - ambiguous question or not. The reality is, if non-muslims really thought the way you claim about hudud, they would have a massive red flag light up in their brains as soon as the word "hudud" is mentioned. And they most definitely would not respond in such a positive way for anything related to hudud.


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
Of course. I challenge you to find a single non-Muslim who supports Muslims executing apostates.


;D ;D Just after you assured me that there is a "small but significant minority" of non-muslims who do indeed support this law. Kind of a redundant request wouldn't you say?


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
I think you will find that I have used those terms far more frequently in this thread. But don't let the facts get in the way of more Gandalf spin.


Yes, but isn't it funny that every time we get to the evidence question, it always comes out as "take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to kill people in the name of islam". Isn't it curious, while you don't disagree with my version, you have never once justified your non-evidence by saying (for example) ""take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to enact their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws". Could it be because this wording sounds just slightly more viable and less hysterical than your words? Food for though no?


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
That is not how democracy works Gandalf. You are hardly going to get a third of the population abstaining on allowing Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam. That you think this way merely highlights the extent of your own delusion.


*NEWSFLASH* FD - the government is dominated by the Malay UMNO party. Malay (muslim) -represented parties make a majority of parliament. If 53% of these parties members and supporters really were "frothing at the mouth", "desperate" to get these "killing in the name of islam" laws through, I'm pretty sure you would at the very least see something more than the complete inaction on the issue we are seeing now.


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:53am:
Quote:
Oh dear God, you really are saying that.


Yes Gandalf. It is a democracy. Only 1/3 of the population support the laws. The laws are inevitably going to be controversial and there is no way they will slip under the radar, which is why Anwar Ibrahim had to clarify his coalition's position on them. If only 1/3 of the population support such a law it will fail, and not because of lack of motivation on the part of those who support it, as you claim. Nor could it succeed, for want of such motivation, because of lack of interest or ambivalence among non-Muslims regarding Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims are simply not going to turn a blind eye to the barbarity of Islam rearing it's ugly head in their own backyard.


Way to completely avoid the point  ::)

Once again:

do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 8th, 2014 at 11:49am

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:11am:
Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws.


Oh there you go again, blissfully assuming what non-muslims do and think.

Apparently, PAS has quite a significant non-muslim support base:


Quote:
one fact which has emerged is that an overwhelming number of Chinese voters had backed PAS candidates this time around.



Quote:
One example is in Selayang's Taman Daya, a predominantly Chinese area, where the PAS candidate garnered 1681 votes against BN's 160 votes.

Said Zaidy Talib, PAS's winning candidate in the Taman Templer state seat:

"I won with a majority of 7467 (votes) due to support from urban voters especially the Chinese," he told Harakahdaily.

http://en.harakahdaily.net/index.php/berita-utama/7165-despite-mcas-hate-campaign-pas-gets-unprecedented-support-from-chinese.html


Quote:
JOHOR BARU: JOHOR Pas has admitted that Chinese votes contributed to the party's success in winning two more seats here.

Its commissioner Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed said the party managed to win seats where Chinese voters made up of more than 40 per cent of the voters.

"This means the Chinese not only voted for DAP candidates but also for ours.

"The election results also show that Chinese voters gave between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of their votes to Pas candidates," he said.

Read more: 'Chinese votes helped Pas' - General - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/chinese-votes-helped-pas-1.276559#ixzz2plYoVo5b


PAS even has its own non-muslim supporters wing which fielded non-muslim candidates on behalf of PAS



What proportion of PAS votes actually are muslim? Oh thats right, you don't have a damn clue. For all you know the percentage of muslim votes is far less than "roughly half the people who [according to the PEW survey] support these laws." And its anyone's guess as to how many of these people voted for PAS because of rather than in spite of "these laws".


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:11am:
Contrary to your absurd spin about there being no "serious" debate on the issue, it gets far more attention than nearly any other issue with so little support.


lol - confused as always FD. Straight after explaining to me that elections are never referendums on single issues, you then use PAS's (relatively) high vote to argue that it "demonstrates a high level of motivation" on this hudud issue. In the spirit of "elections never being referendums on single issues", is it possible that PAS's high vote actually had little to do with their hudud policy? Do you think that just maybe Malaysians were voting in favour of some of PAS's far more prominent (and appealing) credentials such as anti-corruption, anti-status-quo and anti-BN in general? And that Malaysians voted for PAS because of these issue, and quite possibly in spite of, not because of their policies on hudud?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 8th, 2014 at 12:45pm
Oh and just in case FD's confusion is not highlighted enough:


freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:11am:
Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws. In a representative democracy (where elections are not referendums on one single issue) that actually demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue.


The vast majority of muslim Malaysians vote consistently for parties that take a clear anti-hudud stance. But somehow this does not "demonstrate a high level of motivation on this particular issue".

More impeccable FD logic:
- most Malays voting for anti-hudud parties = says nothing about level of support for hudud

- a minority of Malays voting for pro-hudud party, but whose most prominent platform is an anti-corruption, anti-status quo one (and hudud was conspicuously relegated to the back-burner) = definitely "demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue"

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 8th, 2014 at 1:51pm

Quote:
That you can't see that you are blatantly assuming what the respondents meant


You introduced the survey. You made claims (that do not even make sense) about what it means regarding stoning adulterers and executing apostates.


Quote:
By the way, the "fair to all" and "reduce rampant crime" responses were two separate questions


OK, please point out the response to questions about executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death.


Quote:
I'm only going to say this once more - they were asked if "hudud promises justice for all" - there are no qualifications about only including certain parts of hudud - and unless you can demonstrate that the respondents were applying any qualifications about the question, you don't have a leg to stand on.


I am not "standing on" this survey. I am not trying to make anything out of it. You are. I am merely pointing out that it does not show what they think about adultery and stoning laws.


Quote:
Only someone with your blinding prejudice would claim with a straight face that people who apparently are so "passionately opposed to hudud could possibly give the responses they did - ambiguous question or not.


Your words Gandalf, not mine.


Quote:
he reality is, if non-muslims really thought the way you claim about hudud


You mean if they were opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam?


Quote:
they would have a massive red flag light up in their brains as soon as the word "hudud" is mentioned


The survey was conducted in a foreign language. I have no idea how it was presented. I just know that even after translation to English, it is still transparent spin.


Quote:
Just after you assured me that there is a "small but significant minority" of non-muslims who do indeed support this law. If, as you claim, this really was about executing apostates and stoning adulterers, and they failed to mention this in the survey, then it is obvious and transparent spin and you are either incredibly naive or seeking to reinforce your own self delusion.


Your words Gandalf, not mine. It is all there if you wish to quote me instead of lying about what I said.


Quote:
Yes, but isn't it funny that every time we get to the evidence question, it always comes out as "take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to kill people in the name of islam".


No Gandalf. You are wrong on that also. It did most times, for the obvious reason that I copied and pasted it. I often have to ask you something 100 times before getting a straight answer. I know the drill.


Quote:
Isn't it curious, while you don't disagree with my version, you have never once justified your non-evidence by saying (for example) ""take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to enact their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws". Could it be because this wording sounds just slightly more viable and less hysterical than your words? Food for though no?


I did exactly that. Surprise surprise, Gandalf still could not give a straight answer. At any time you could have given a straight answer and if you felt it necessary, qualified it with the context. After all, you spent many posts explaining that I was trying to make it sound like blowing up malls. Surely it would have been easier to give a straight answer and explain that you were not talking about blowing up malls.


Quote:
*NEWSFLASH* FD - the government is dominated by the Malay UMNO party. Malay (muslim) -represented parties make a majority of parliament. If 53% of these parties members and supporters really were "frothing at the mouth", "desperate" to get these "killing in the name of islam" laws through, I'm pretty sure you would at the very least see something more than the complete inaction on the issue we are seeing now.


Complete inaction means not getting the laws through parliament, but getting less barbaric ones through (eg the "rehabilitation" camps). If only 1/3 of the country supports the laws, this makes perfect sense.


Quote:
do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?


Your words, not mine.


Quote:
lol - confused as always FD. Straight after explaining to me that elections are never referendums on single issues, you then use PAS's (relatively) high vote to argue that it "demonstrates a high level of motivation" on this hudud issue. In the spirit of "elections never being referendums on single issues", is it possible that PAS's high vote actually had little to do with their hudud policy? Do you think that just maybe Malaysians were voting in favour of some of PAS's far more prominent (and appealing) credentials such as anti-corruption, anti-status-quo and anti-BN in general? And that Malaysians voted for PAS because of these issue, and quite possibly in spite of, not because of their policies on hudud?


Sure, that's possible, just as it is possible that the reason Muslims who support these laws and don't vote for PAS do so for any number of reasons. You have spent a few pages arguing that you can read whatever you feel like into the election results. You seem perfectly capable of understanding the potential flaws in this when I do it, but seem oblivious when I try to explain the same thing to you.

BTW, all minor parties rail against the corruption etc of the major parties.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:06pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 1:51pm:
Quote:
do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?


Your words, not mine.


Shall I quote your response again? When I claimed that Muslims are not "frothing at the mouth" "desperate" to get those hudud laws through, why did you correct me and assure me  "that is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise."??

Are you saying now you didn't really mean that?

Its a simple question really, do you think respondents in a survey who answer "yes" to a particular question must necessarily be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about the issue? Why is that "exactly how it is"? I don't think its an unreasonable thing to ask given your response.

Maybe I should follow the FD way, and start a new thread entitled "FD said something stupid" (or words to that effect).

But anyway, lets cut to the chase shall we?

Do you, Freediver, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?

Simple question, no need to obfuscate or unnecessarily spin it into something incomprehensible. You made a claim, I think its only reasonable that you back it up with some plausible evidence (or even any evidence).

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Pete Waldo on Jan 9th, 2014 at 4:16am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:48pm:
How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?


Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.


It is so tragic that you seem so blind to THE REASON for apostasy laws in Islam and instead dither on about who they should apply to. Don't Sunnis murder Shiites? Don't Sunnis and Shiites murder Ahmadiyya? The practice of such Satan inspired laws is inevitable, as a Christian mother of 5 sits on death row in Pakistan, for nothing more than a false accusation of "blasphemy":
http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/11/christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-pakistan/
Because Satan hates Jesus.

Muslims are murdered for the "apostasy" of beginning a life in Jesus Christ, because Islam cannot stand in the light of the truth since it is a scripture-contrary, counter-religion with a pre-Muhammad history-devoid, archaeology-absent, reality-rejecting, geographically-impossible so-called "tradition", that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history, that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.

Former Muslims who begin a life in Jesus Christ are murdered, because the anti-religion of Islam is the very antitheses of freedom, liberty and the right to self-determination. Because the threat of someone walking in truth presents far too much of a threat to those indoctrinated into the lie of Islam. As manifest even in the conspicuous and transparent jealousy that Muhammad's followers exhibit for those of us that enjoy the freedom of a life in Jesus Christ.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/

That's why as we look around the world today, we find totalitarian governments that even murder their own citizens, for exercising their God-given right to freedom, liberty and self-determination. With 51 mainly Islamic States that ban or restrict the Gospel because of the threat that the truth of the Gospel has always posed to Islam.
http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51

The same reason Muslim mothers and fathers murder their own children for "apostasy", while actually believing that murder restores their "honor".

For 1400 years Muslims have had to be forced to stay in Muhammad's cult because Islam is a lie. Were it not for the intimidation of the threat of being murdered, or at least punished by being disowned, disinherited, ostracized by one's community and fired from jobs and such, Islam would have died with Muhammad. That's why the penalty for leaving is death, just like the Mafia and every other dangerous cult. Islam IS slavery - to Muhammad's followers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

The slavery created by "apostasy" laws is akin to the "blasphemy" laws you have in Malaysia, that prevent honest and open discussion regarding Islam and Muhammad. The reason is obviously because Islam cannot stand the light of truth.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm

If you disagree that Islam is a lie then let's begin with the post in which I replied to you, that you ignored, regarding the history of Mecca. If you try a point by point reply, I believe it will go a long way toward helping you overcome the false prophet Muhammad. If Mecca did not exist prior to the 4th century AD then all of the Islamic so-called "tradition" regarding things prior to the 5th century AD like Islam's created nonsense about Adam and Abraham, are proven to be pure poppycock, since other ancient Arabian towns are well attested in the historical and archaeological records of Arabia.
Did you notice that Wally couldn't reply either?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/20#20

Then perhaps we can move on to Muhammad proclaiming the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Just as Muhammad was the exact opposite of Jesus Christ:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm:
And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws, and no real reason to suspect that they would.


Except perhaps for those of us that live civilized societies in which citizen's God -given rights to freedom, liberty and self-determination are protected, who recognize that such as the death penalty for "apostasy" is nothing less than cold-blooded murder, of someone who just wants to be free instead of being a slave.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:05pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:20am:
Your "explanation" rests on the premise that these muslims are "desperate" to get their laws through


No it doesn't Gandalf. Do I really need to explain how democracy works? It requires no assumptions at all about the extent of motivation of these people, beyond being able to figure out what box to tick on election day. You are the one trying to change it from a discussion over who supports or opposes the laws to a discussion about how motivated they are.


Quote:
and are only stopped by a majority of "opposers"


That's how democracy works Gandalf.


Quote:
Are you saying now you didn't really mean that?


I am saying I was referring to the functioning of democracy, not the forthiness of Muslims. I am also saying that this should have been bleeding obvious from the context. We actually had the same discussion a few times, and you managed to find the least qualified response on my part.


Quote:
Its a simple question really, do you think respondents in a survey who answer "yes" to a particular question must necessarily be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about the issue? Why is that "exactly how it is"? I don't think its an unreasonable thing to ask given your response.


I have also clarified this several times already.


Quote:
Do you, Freediver, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?


I have the Pew survey. We have been over the maths several times already.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:21pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:05pm:
I have the Pew survey. We have been over the maths several times already.


The PEW survey only asks muslims. That gets us to around 1/3 who oppose - where does the other 1/3 come from? Not from the survey.

Again, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?

Simple question.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:26pm
It comes from non-Muslims Gandalf. Got any more stupid questions?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:33pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:26pm:
It comes from non-Muslims Gandalf. Got any more stupid questions?


Just one, where is the survey that shows these non-muslims expressing their opposition to the laws?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:40pm
Someone showed me a survey where they avoided asking about the laws. Will that do?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:53pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:40pm:
Someone showed me a survey where they avoided asking about the laws. Will that do?


No.

Again, 2/3rds of the entire population are allegedly "opposing" a couple of laws from being implemented. Where is the evidence? All you have is a survey that states that about 1/3 support that law and 1/3 oppose it. Where does it say that the remaining 1/3 oppose it?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:54pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:05pm:
No it doesn't Gandalf. Do I really need to explain how democracy works?


Apparently you do. You can firstly explain to me why these "supporters" end up voting overwhelmingly for anti-hudud parties. The point I've been trying to impress upon you from the very beginning is that responding "yes" or "no" in a random, consequence-free survey is not the same thing as actually voting for that belief to become a reality. Do you think that just maybe its possible that when a PEW interviewer asks a muslim about their opinion on a particular islamic law, they are more interested in appearing "islamic" as opposed to expressing their heart-felt belief? This could explain why these same muslims, when actually presented the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is by ticking the 'PAS' box at election day, they overwhelmingly do not.


freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 12:05pm:
I am saying I was referring to the functioning of democracy, not the forthiness of Muslims. I am also saying that this should have been bleeding obvious from the context.


You are not referring to the functioning of democracy at all. You have singularly failed to 1. demonstrate that a majority of the entire population is blocking the implementation of these hudud laws and 2. demonstrate that the majority of muslims who responded "yes" in a survey are even trying to get these laws through. And you especially haven't explained the clear disconnect between responses in a survey and actual voting patterns in real elections.

Those are the things you would address if you were referring to the functioning of democracy.


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:51pm

Quote:
Apparently you do. You can firstly explain to me why these "supporters" end up voting overwhelmingly for anti-hudud parties.


Probably because the pro-hudud candidates are lunatics. Does this sound familiar? It should, because you have asked the some question many times. One pro-killing-people party gets 14% of the vote. That is not insignificant. The main reason of course is that the major parties seek the middle ground. The respectability of a major party always has some appeal, even if they are not as extreme as you would like them to be. We see the same thing in Australian politics too. Is does not mean people do not really think what they think or would not take an opportunity to get their more extreme views represented if they were able to. The fact is, with only 1/3 support in the community, if you vote for a pro-hudud party, you are going to vote for a minor party that has no chance of gaining power, and has the respectability to match.


Quote:
Do you think that just maybe its possible that when a PEW interviewer asks a muslim about their opinion on a particular islamic law, they are more interested in appearing "islamic" as opposed to expressing their heart-felt belief?


I think they simply say what they think. They probably appreciate the opportunity to express an opinion on each separate issue, rather than having people arrogantly assuming, as you do, that they support every stance taken by whatever party they vote for. I know if someone tried to figure out what my views are on individual issues based on how I vote, they would probably get it wrong. I would think they were an idiot for even trying. When I see people attempting this in Australian politics it is face-palm time, so I'm not sure why you keep trying to do it for Malaysian politics, especially after you just explained to me that an election is not a referendum on a single issue. You already understand why you are wrong, you just can't bring yourself to judge your own opinions the same way you do others - probably something to do with being a Muslim.


Quote:
You are not referring to the functioning of democracy at all. You have singularly failed to 1. demonstrate that a majority of the entire population is blocking the implementation of these hudud laws


I never claimed it was an active process.


Quote:
demonstrate that the majority of muslims who responded "yes" in a survey are even trying to get these laws through


Again, it is not active process, and I have explained it many times.


Quote:
And you especially haven't explained the clear disconnect between responses in a survey and actual voting patterns in real elections.


Yes I have. Over and over again. You even explained it to me when I made the mistake of employing your logic. How many times do I have to explain it before you realise that it applies to you to?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:27am

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:51pm:
Probably because the pro-hudud candidates are lunatics. Does this sound familiar? It should, because you have asked the some question many times. One pro-killing-people party gets 14% of the vote. That is not insignificant.


100% grasping at straws. It is bad enough that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim that 2/3rds of the entire population "oppose" the laws, now you have to perform all sorts of contortions to explain away all the evidence that strongly suggests the opposite.

Firstly - muslims not voting for pro-hudud party because they think they are "lunatics" = completely baseless. Secondly, I already posted some statistics that showed a significant number of non-muslims who vote for PAS. So that "significant" muslim-pro-hudud vote could be even less. Thus you have not a leg to stand on to claim that 14% of votes represents a "not insignificant" vote for pro-hudud because a) you have no clue as to how many "pro-stoning/executing apostates" people voted for PAS and b) you don't even have any idea whether the "pro-stoning/executing apostates" (according to the PEW survey) even voted for PAS because of their pro-stoning/executing apostates.


freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:51pm:
rather than having people arrogantly assuming, as you do, that they support every stance taken by whatever party they vote for. I know if someone tried to figure out what my views are on individual issues based on how I vote, they would probably get it wrong.


But thats completely different to "arrogantly assuming" that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose muslims enacting hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves - as opposed to thinking that they just maybe might consider it an issue for muslims to sort out themselves. ::)


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am

Quote:
100% grasping at straws. It is bad enough that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim that 2/3rds of the entire population "oppose" the laws, now you have to perform all sorts of contortions to explain away all the evidence that strongly suggests the opposite.


It is not a contortion Gandalf. An election is not a referendum on a single issue.


Quote:
Thus you have not a leg to stand on to claim that 14% of votes represents a "not insignificant" vote for pro-hudud because a) you have no clue as to how many "pro-stoning/executing apostates" people voted for PAS and b) you don't even have any idea whether the "pro-stoning/executing apostates" (according to the PEW survey) even voted for PAS because of their pro-stoning/executing apostates.


Liekwise you have no clue at all why they vote the way they do. What we do have is a survey showing that the majority of Muslims support these laws. You are taking something very simple - these people support the laws, but they never get enacted because they are a minority of the total population - and trying to turn it into something absurdly convoluted and unlikely - that the non-Muslims are somehow ambivalent on Muslims killing people in the name of Islam, and the Muslims are also ambivalent on the issue, and the laws never come to pass because the Muslims are afraid of their own extremism and would turn away from it as it approached becoming reality.

The voting patterns and party policy positions in Malaysia are entirely consistent with the survey results, and with the majority of Muslims actually wanting what they say they want, and with the majority of the entire population opposing the more barbaric laws.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 10th, 2014 at 10:18am

freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
It is not a contortion Gandalf.


It absolutely is contortions and grasping at straws to explain away the clear lack of muslim voter support for hudud as "Probably because the pro-hudud candidates are lunatics" - based on no evidence whatsoever. It is also contortions, by the way, to claim that when respondents say that hudud provides justice for all, they must not actually be talking about hudud, but only bits and pieces of it - based on no evidence whatsoever.

Do you like how your arguments work FD? Each time you are forced to back up a baseless claim, you just "support" it with another baseless claim. Your entire case is just baseless claim heaped on baseless claim. Were you ever involved in amway  by any chance?


freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
Liekwise you have no clue at all why they vote the way they do.


;D ;D Hello FD? Anybody there??

Nothing seems to be sinking through. This is *YOUR* claim we are talking about. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that I have no clue about voting patterns, just as I have no clue as to what 2/3rds of the entire population feel about passing a particular piece of legislation. You on the other hand *DO* claim to have a clue about what 2/3rds of the population think about this piece of legislation, and that is that they want to oppose it. My job is not to have "a clue" about this, but merely to point out that you have no evidence whatsoever for this claim, and therefore no leg to stand on.


freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
What we do have is a survey showing that the majority of Muslims support these laws.


Thats right FD - we have a survey showing support from around 1/3 of the entire population, and slightly less oppose it. That leaves another 1/3 or so which we don't have a damn clue about. Yet that doesn't stop you ridiculing any suggestion that the vast majority of this remaining 1/3 would do anything other than "passionately" oppose it - and the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".


freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
You are taking something very simple - these people support the laws, but they never get enacted because they are a minority of the total population


Something "Very simple" that relies entirely on making a completely baseless assumption about the attitudes of 1/3 of the population towards these laws.


freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
and trying to turn it into something absurdly convoluted and unlikely - that the non-Muslims are somehow ambivalent on Muslims killing people in the name of Islam


As opposed to trying to turn it into something that is blatantly dishonest and entirely misleading.

It is not absurdly convoluted and unlikely that the non-muslims might be ambivalent on muslims introducing hudud apostasy and adultery laws that apply only to muslims.


freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:24am:
The voting patterns and party policy positions in Malaysia are entirely consistent with the survey results, and with the majority of Muslims actually wanting what they say they want


Um no. As I've pointed out a thousand times already, the majority of Malays (57% at last election) vote for BN, who has taken a staunchly anti-hudud position. Of the rest of the Malays, they either vote for the anti-hudud people's justice party, or the pro-hudud PAS (presuming none of them vote for the pro-Chinese DAP - which is being extremely generous). We know that PAS got 14% of the total vote last election, and we know from the evidence I have already posted that a sizeable proportion of that 14% comes from Chinese voters. That leaves a very small minority of Malays indeed that actually voted for the pro-hudud PAS. Yet according to PEW, a majority of Malays support hudud.

How the hell can you say that voting patterns are "entirely consistent" with the survey results??

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Pete Waldo on Jan 11th, 2014 at 12:33am
Gandalf, my post was moved along with this thread to this "Extremism Exposed" section. I would appreciate it if you would exegete my post item by item, and indicate what it is you believe to be extreme. Please quote it section by section and explain:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388619982/68#68

More importantly, what part of that post is untrue?
Or did you move it here because it is my post that does indeed expose the extremism of Muhammad's anti-religion, that fills his followers with complete resolve to specifically DISbelieve, another specific religion?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 11th, 2014 at 7:00am
Pete if that post was made in the 'Gandalf's version of democracy' thread (which its currently in), then that thread was moved to the EE forum by freediver, not me.

There is another thread that I did move to EE forum called "Gandalf's version of human rights, which I merged with the above mentioned thread because it was relevant to that thread. Freediver then went and split that from the democracy thread.

Long story short, it seems that particular post was either moved to EE by freediver or you posted it in the EE forum in the first place.

And by the way, you can thank freediver for all the confusion for insisting on having a billion threads on the same topic that I am forced to merge and move.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Pete Waldo on Jan 11th, 2014 at 9:01pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 7:00am:
Pete if that post was made in the 'Gandalf's version of democracy' thread (which its currently in), then that thread was moved to the EE forum by freediver, not me.


It was in that thread before it was moved. I guess I might have gotten my misimpression by the moved thread note, that was left behind in the Islam section.

In any event, would you care to comment section by section on the post at that link, in which I quoted you and commented on the reason for apostasy laws?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am

Quote:
It absolutely is contortions and grasping at straws to explain away the clear lack of muslim voter support for hudud as "Probably because the pro-hudud candidates are lunatics" - based on no evidence whatsoever.


There is no clear lack of voter support. There is you pretending that an election is a referendum on a single issue. There is a party with 14% of the vote that supports these punishments.


Quote:
It is also contortions, by the way, to claim that when respondents say that hudud provides justice for all, they must not actually be talking about hudud, but only bits and pieces of it - based on no evidence whatsoever.


It is based on the opinions expressed and questions asked obviously having nothing at all to do with executing apostates.


Quote:
Do you like how your arguments work FD? Each time you are forced to back up a baseless claim, you just "support" it with another baseless claim. Your entire case is just baseless claim heaped on baseless claim.


My argument is built on a survey that shows what Muslims actually think. Yours is based on pretending that an election is a referendum on a single issue and reading whatever you feel like into the outcome. You introduced by the election outcomes and the argument about the level of motivation among the Muslims who support these punishments. Both of these arguments are completely baseless. The only reason I am even talking about election outcomes on levels of motivation is to explain, so far with no success, that the evidence does not support you interpretation and is entirely consistent with mine. You are the one arguing that Muslims do not think what they say they think. You are the one rejecting the direct, explicit evidence of their views and replacing it with your own alternate reality.


Quote:
Nothing seems to be sinking through. This is *YOUR* claim we are talking about. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that I have no clue about voting patterns


You are the one who introduced the voting patterns to somehow show that Muslims do not think what they say they think.


Quote:
Thats right FD - we have a survey showing support from around 1/3 of the entire population, and slightly less oppose it. That leaves another 1/3 or so which we don't have a damn clue about. Yet that doesn't stop you ridiculing any suggestion that the vast majority of this remaining 1/3 would do anything other than "passionately" oppose it - and the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".


Again Gandalf, you can easily quote what I actually said. Remember, you are the one who introduced the argument about motivation in an attempt to detract what what Muslims say they think.


Quote:
Um no. As I've pointed out a thousand times already, the majority of Malays (57% at last election) vote for BN, who has taken a staunchly anti-hudud position.


There you go again. An election is not a referendum on a single issue, remember?

Where do you get the racial breakdown of voting patterns from?


Quote:
Of the rest of the Malays, they either vote for the anti-hudud people's justice party, or the pro-hudud PAS (presuming none of them vote for the pro-Chinese DAP - which is being extremely generous). We know that PAS got 14% of the total vote last election, and we know from the evidence I have already posted that a sizeable proportion of that 14% comes from Chinese voters. That leaves a very small minority of Malays indeed that actually voted for the pro-hudud PAS. Yet according to PEW, a majority of Malays support hudud.
How the hell can you say that voting patterns are "entirely consistent" with the survey results??


I have already explained how many times. There is simply no contradiction. As you just finished explaining to me, an election is not a referendum on a single issue. Were the Australian public, or any other democracy, to have a similar breakdown of views on a contentious issue, I would expect similar party positions and voting patterns. Like I said, you argument is built on hypocrisy. You insist that you can read whatever you want into an election outcome, but when anyone else tries to do this, you point out that an election is not a referendum on a single issue. I have had to explain this in nearly every single post Gandalf. If you weren't so blinded in your views it would have sunk in by now. Instead you seem oblivious to it. You keep asking me to explain the same simple point over and over again, even after you have just finished explaining the exact same thing to me.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:29pm

freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
There is no clear lack of voter support.


Correct - and furthermore there is no clear anything from these elections. Well done FD. It almost seems that you are starting to understand the point. Shame you can't apply the wisdom in these words and apply it to your argument though.


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
It is based on the opinions expressed and questions asked obviously having nothing at all to do with executing apostates.


Of course FD - your logic is impeccable. Unquestionably a question about "hudud promising justice for all" is only talking about bits and pieces of hudud. And by the way, that question had nothing to do with crime, you just made that up.


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
My argument is built on a survey that shows what Muslims actually think.


Your argument that 2/3rds of the entire population oppose two particular laws is based on no such thing. In fact its based on nothing at all. How many different ways do you need me to explain this?


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
Yours is based on blah blah blah


Save your breath - my argument is entirely based on pointing out that you have no shred of evidence for your case about what 2/3rds of the entire population think - nothing less nothing more.


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
You are the one who introduced the voting patterns to somehow show that Muslims do not think what they say they think.


Wrong. Please try and comprehend what I actually say. I am not asserting anything about what these voting patterns mean, but rather raising these seemingly contradictory voting patterns to raise a perfectly legitimate question about your dogmatic assertions about what a majority of muslims think and (would) do.


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
Again Gandalf, you can easily quote what I actually said.


Ok:


freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:17pm:
roughly two thirds of the population oppose these laws.



freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:17pm:
2/3 of the population oppose them - as "passionately" as you would expect people to oppose letting Muslims start killing people in the name of Islam.


Have I mentioned that these are completely baseless?


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
There you go again. An election is not a referendum on a single issue, remember?


LOL what is it FD? Does 14% support for PAS "demonstrate a high level of motivation on this particular issue", or does it demonstrate we don't have a damn clue since, as you say "An election is not a referendum on a single issue"? Make up your mind please.


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
you argument is built on hypocrisy.


The "elections are not a referendum on a single issue" was your point, and I only cited it back to you when you started contradicting yourself by saying 14% support for PAS "demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue".


freediver wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:02am:
You insist that you can read whatever you want into an election outcome, but when anyone else tries to do this, you point out that an election is not a referendum on a single issue.


Actually, while its true that elections are never single issue referendums, I never actually argued that the voting patterns are not significant. Again I only ever mentioned it to highlight the contradiction in your own argument. The truth is, it is absurd to claim that one group of people would want to implement particular laws, but their voting behaviour in actual elections - not to mention the political context and policy platforms of the major parties is completely meaningless/irrelevant. That the group who one survey states support the implementation of particular laws - actually overwhelmingly vote for parties that openly state they oppose those very laws - is reason to cast serious doubts on the validity, or even the significance of that one survey. Thats just common sense - but I understand only too well that an argument that is based only on prejudice, such as yours, is notably lacking in common sense.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:20am
Gandalf where do you get the racial breakdown of voting patterns from?


Quote:
Correct - and furthermore there is no clear anything from these elections. Well done FD. It almost seems that you are starting to understand the point. Shame you can't apply the wisdom in these words and apply it to your argument though.


We do get a very clear account of what Muslims think from the Pew survey.


Quote:
Of course FD - your logic is impeccable. Unquestionably a question about "hudud promising justice for all" is only talking about bits and pieces of hudud. And by the way, that question had nothing to do with crime, you just made that up.


There is something very wrong with that survey and you are naive to read as much into it as you do.


Quote:
Your argument that 2/3rds of the entire population oppose two particular laws is based on no such thing.


It is perfectly reasonable to assume non-Muslims oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam, which is exactly what this is about, and why there is something wrong with your survey for never mentioning this detail.


Quote:
Save your breath - my argument is entirely based on pointing out that you have no shred of evidence for your case about what 2/3rds of the entire population think - nothing less nothing more.


So you have abandoned your claim that the Muslims who support these laws don't really support them and that the absence of these laws in Malaysia can be attributed to some kind of lack of will on their part?


Quote:
I am not asserting anything about what these voting patterns mean, but rather raising these seemingly contradictory voting patterns to raise a perfectly legitimate question about your dogmatic assertions about what a majority of muslims think and (would) do.


Are you asserting that they are contradictory? What are they contradicting?


Quote:
The truth is, it is absurd to claim that one group of people would want to implement particular laws, but their voting behaviour in actual elections - not to mention the political context and policy platforms of the major parties is completely meaningless/irrelevant.


I did not say it is irrelevant. I said it is consistent. I have explained why, many times. You either dismiss these explanations off-hand, or completely ignore them.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:09am

freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:20am:
Gandalf where do you get the racial breakdown of voting patterns from?


http://www.iseas.edu.sg/ISEAS/upload/files/analysis_of_general_election13results.pdf

page 14 - BN received 59% of Malay votes. Page 16 - racial breakdown for opposition PR. No breakdown provided for PAS - but 81% of Chinese voted for PR, and the evidence I provided previously indicates that a not-insignificant number of them voted directly for PAS. Its also a safe bet that a large proportion of the 41% of Malays who voted PR voted for Anwar's People's Justice party. Though it needs to be pointed out that many of the electorates had the PR on a group ticket.


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:20am:
It is perfectly reasonable to assume non-Muslims oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam


Quite possibly. Like for example I don't think its reasonable to assume non-muslims would not oppose muslims walking into a shopping mall with assault rifles and shooting everyone, or stepping on to a bus and blowing it up.

Those are examples of "killing people in the name of Islam". And I agree non-muslims would be mad to not oppose them.

Yet it is perfectly reasonable to think that non-muslims might not be opposed to muslims enacting their own hudud laws on apostasy and adultery (hint: note the difference between saying this and "assuming" that non-muslims definitely do think this). What is *NOT* reasonable is to assume so dogmatically that non-muslims would oppose such moves. You are arrogantly projecting your own values onto other people.


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:20am:
So you have abandoned your claim that the Muslims who support these laws don't really support them


Stick to what I actually say FD. I claimed no such thing.


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:20am:
I did not say it is irrelevant. I said it is consistent. I have explained why, many times. You either dismiss these explanations off-hand, or completely ignore them.


You haven't explained anything.

Of the group that PEW says are mostly supportive of hudud apostasy and adultery laws, 59% of them vote for the anti-hudud ruling coalition. Thats a *SEEMING* inconsistency right there. It is also inconsistent for you to claim that responses in a survey must necessarily translate into political motivation for that issue - even though the issue is very far from the political agenda, there is no mass political protests like for example we saw with the 'bersih' movement, and the fact that the ruling coalition can even afford to take the anti-hudud path and *STILL* get a huge majority of muslim votes. Of course you can come up with other possible explanations for this, but you cannot say that it is "perfectly consistent".


Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:41am

Quote:
Stick to what I actually say FD. I claimed no such thing.


So what was your claim?


Quote:
You haven't explained anything.


Yes I have. Over and over again.


Quote:
Of the group that PEW says are mostly supportive of hudud apostasy and adultery laws, 59% of them vote for the anti-hudud ruling coalition.


Pew says that just over 50% of Muslims support the law. If the election were actually a referendum on this particular issue, you would expect just over 50% of them to vote in favour. As an election is in fact not a referendum on a single issue, it is not in any way surprising that 59% vote for the ruling coalition.


Quote:
Thats a *SEEMING* inconsistency right there.


Only if you keep forgetting that an election is not a referendum on a single issue, and if you keep ignoring the nature of representative democracy.


Quote:
It is also inconsistent for you to claim that responses in a survey must necessarily translate into political motivation for that issue


You are the only one making an argument about the level of motivation.


Quote:
even though the issue is very far from the political agenda


This is an example of your argument about motivation.


Quote:
and the fact that the ruling coalition can even afford to take the anti-hudud path and *STILL* get a huge majority of muslim votes


This is an example of you not understanding representative democracy. It is to be expected that  the ruling coalition adopt this policy.


Quote:
Of course you can come up with other possible explanations for this, but you cannot say that it is "perfectly consistent".


It is entirely consistent. It is exactly what you would expect.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:59am
Gandalf, Malaysia has first-past-the-post voting. Any vote for a minor candidate in such a system indicates a high level of motivation and interest, as a voter abandons the opportunity to choose between the two leading candidates. This is usually referred to as strategic or insincere voting, with the "spoiler effect" referring to the tendency of minor candidates to split the vote from one side of the political spectrum and influence the outcome of the election, even though they have no chance of winning themselves.

Furthermore, Malaysia does not have a free press.

Trying to read intent or motivation on a single issue into an election outcome under such a system is fraught with danger. Even under our system, where we have preferential voting and a free press, it is nearly impossible. In comparison to our system, Malaysia has several more layers of obscurity.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by gandalf on Jan 13th, 2014 at 2:56pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:41am:
You are the only one making an argument about the level of motivation.


No. Recall your sentence immediately above this statement:


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:41am:
If the election were actually a referendum on this particular issue, you would expect just over 50% of them to vote in favour.


"expecting" them to vote on this issue signifies political motivation wouldn't you say? Thats what I disagree with. Saying they agree with a hypothetical concept in a meaningless, consequence-free survey is a long way from actually deciding to vote in favour of it becoming a reality if ever given the chance.


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:59am:
Gandalf, Malaysia has first-past-the-post voting. Any vote for a minor candidate in such a system indicates a high level of motivation and interest


motivation and interest in what though? You can't even make an educated guess as to what "issues" Malaysians had in mind when they voted for PAS. So merely saying this "indicates a high level of motivation and interest" is completely meaningless and worse than useless.


freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 10:59am:
Trying to read intent or motivation on a single issue into an election outcome under such a system is fraught with danger. Even under our system, where we have preferential voting and a free press, it is nearly impossible.


I agree. The point is though, an election in which the leading muslim candidates are tripping over themselves to promote their anti-hudud credentials, and even the one pro-hudud party has to quietly pretend that the issue is not really there - is not exactly the sort of election environment you would expect if muslims really do want these laws enacted. Irrespective of all the intricacies of the Malaysian system, you would still expect there to be political capital on this issue for the parties that primarily stand for muslims - and that these parties would attempt to exploit this capital. About the last thing you would expect is for them to sell themselves as these overtly anti-hudud candidates. 

Personally, I prefer to exercise caution when judging an entire group of people to be "little Hitler's" and demonize them based solely on one survey in which they are asked to answer "yes" or "no" to a hypothetical. I think its fair to judge them on their actual behaviour - and quite frankly it is not the behaviour of "little Hitler's" to live in harmony with their non-muslim neighbours, nor to overwhelmingly reject the extremist policies you accuse them of wanting, election after election.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:48pm

Quote:
"expecting" them to vote on this issue signifies political motivation wouldn't you say? Thats what I disagree with.


You think they would abstain?


Quote:
Saying they agree with a hypothetical concept in a meaningless, consequence-free survey is a long way from actually deciding to vote in favour of it becoming a reality if ever given the chance.


No it isn't. It is one step away, and that one step is actually getting the chance to vote on it. Obviously they would currently lose in Malaysia, but in other Muslim countries they can and do win.

Such survey's are never consequence-free in a democracy. Political parties use them to gauge and respond to the views of the people. The only reason you can pretend it is in this case is because it is still a minority issue.


Quote:
motivation and interest in what though? You can't even make an educated guess as to what "issues" Malaysians had in mind when they voted for PAS. So merely saying this "indicates a high level of motivation and interest" is completely meaningless and worse than useless.


The PAS is an Islamist party. I would expect they have an interest in political Islamism - of a more extreme kind than what they already have. Given they already have lost of backwards laws, it is not a good sign.


Quote:
I agree. The point is though, an election in which the leading muslim candidates are tripping over themselves to promote their anti-hudud credentials, and even the one pro-hudud party has to quietly pretend that the issue is not really there - is not exactly the sort of election environment you would expect if muslims really do want these laws enacted.


It is exactly what you would expect on such an issue if only 1/3 of the population support it.


Quote:
Irrespective of all the intricacies of the Malaysian system, you would still expect there to be political capital on this issue for the parties that primarily stand for muslims - and that these parties would attempt to exploit this capital.


That's what PAS is, and that's what PAS is doing. The two "major" parties (coalitions in Malaysia) do not stand for Muslims. They stand for the majority of Malaysians and are actively seeking to get the majority of the vote. You cannot expect that they would side with the Muslim extremists on an issue that splits the Muslim community nearly down the middle, given that roughly 40% of the population is non-Muslim. You would expect both major coalitions to side with the 2/3 who oppose the laws, because any other stance would guarantee that they can not gain power. This is what you fail to understand about representative democracy. You cannot take an obviously minority stance on a contentious issue and expect to gain power.


Quote:
Personally, I prefer to exercise caution when judging an entire group of people to be "little Hitler's" and demonize them based solely on one survey in which they are asked to answer "yes" or "no" to a hypothetical.


It is what they think Gandalf. You of all people should appreciate the chance for Muslims to speak for themselves rather than have other people say what they think.


Quote:
I think its fair to judge them on their actual behaviour - and quite frankly it is not the behaviour of "little Hitler's" to live in harmony with their non-muslim neighbours


Malaysia has rehabilitation camps for apostates. It has all sorts of nasty laws designed to promote Islam. Most people call that oppression, not harmony. Sure they aren't killing each other, but the Muslims aren't exactly in a position to do that - at least not yet. They are probably more than happy to exploit the dmoinant position they have and let the machinations of state opression grind on until they can be more assertive.

Every time someone else suggests we judge Muslims by their behaviour, you and the other apologists whine that we cannot possibly judge Muslims by the actions of the governments or the specific individuals. Yet here we have the opportunity to judge Muslims by what they actually think, and you immediately backflip. It seems that whatever the issue or action, Muslims and Islam cannot possibly be judged by it. There is an excuse for everything, even when the majority of Muslims openly admit that they support a barbaric law that comes straight from the heart of Islam.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 2:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 12:32pm:
You were attempting to read an absurd level of detail into specific election results. That is what I was criticising with those arguments.


Obviously it wasn't your intention to snooker yourself with your own argument, but thats exactly what you have done. You can't argue that Malaysian democracy makes it impossible for Malaysians to make a decision on any one issue at the ballot box, and then turn around and say 'oh but they could definitely make a decision about this particular issue - if they really wanted to'.


That's what democracy means - literally - the will of the majority. That is about the only thing you can read into the outcome. You obviously need to be careful, which is why I qualified my claim. It does not howevver mean that Gandalf can read whatever he wants to into voting patterns and policy stances. It is not the same argument. I never argued that it is "impossible for Malaysians to make a decision on any one issue at the ballot box". I argued that you cannot break it down the way you attempted to.

You can still have the outcome reflecting the will of the majority even if people vote insincerely and parties hold positions that are rejected by the majority of their support base. This becomes increasingly likely and pretty much inevitable as you drift from a near 50-50 split to a 1/3-2/3 split. Both of those apparent flaws in a representative system can actually contribute to the outcome reflecting the will of the majority. A party will hold a position that is rejected by the majority of it's support base if the overwhelming majority has a different view. Likewise, people will vote insincerely in a first past the post system in order to pool their vote with the nearest significant plurality. What it does do is make the processes behind it less transparent - which is exactly why I can criticise you for trying to read into the voting patterns and party platforms the way you attempt to, while still claiming that the outcome reflects the will of the majority (obviously having independent surveys that confirm the will of the majority helps here). The major parties and coalitions still make it their business to know what people really think and to gain support from the majority of people, even if you cannot see how they do this based on voting patterns.

The criticisms that people make of these democratic mechanisms are not intended to equate them with dictatorship or oligarchy. I challenge you to find a single democracy that permits opposition parties in which the system maintains a position on a controversial issue that is opposed by 2/3 of the population.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by freediver on Aug 31st, 2014 at 6:55pm
Bump for Karnal and Brian.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Karnal on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am

Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Karnal on Sep 1st, 2014 at 5:01pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D


Abu got the better of him. FD's never gotten over it.

From that day on, it was a war against the Muslims. And if there aren't enough Muslims around, FD will go for the spineless apologists.

Believe it or not, FD used to be one of those apologists. Ipso facto, FD is at war with himself.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. It is a jolly world, no?

Title: Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 1st, 2014 at 9:53pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 5:01pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 11:07am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 7:37pm:
Thanks, FD, your longwinded didactic polemics about things you have absolutely no idea about (i.e. Islam) are a fascinating case study in self indulgence. To be honest, I don’t know why G plays the game.

Why don’t you go back to writing interesting posts on economics and history?

The pre-2007 FD was the best.

Such a pity he changed his mind.


He does seem fascinating.  I wonder what was FD's Damascene moment?   When did he see the light?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D


Abu got the better of him. FD's never gotten over it.

From that day on, it was a war against the Muslims. And if there aren't enough Muslims around, FD will go for the spineless apologists.

Believe it or not, FD used to be one of those apologists. Ipso facto, FD is at war with himself.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. It is a jolly world, no?


Kismet, I suppose?  ;)

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.